CRP 186/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Devi, appearin g on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the opposite-party. By the impugned order, dated 05.03.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, H ilakandi, in Title Suit (Restitution) No. 18/2010, the present petitioner, who h ad instituted the Suit for restitution of conjugal rights with the opposite-part y herein, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00/-, per month, as maintenance pe ndente lite, and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- as the expenses of the litigation. Aggrieved by the directions, which have been so made by the learned Court below on the basis of the application made by the opposite-party herein, the present p etition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the fact that it is the present petitioner, who had instituted the s aid Suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights and, on being a member of the Tr ipura State Rifles, the petitioner is capable to pay, and shall pay, the costs o f the litigation, this Court does not find that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-, which has been directed to be paid by the present petitioner, is an exc essive amount for the petitioner and, at the same time, when the opposite-party herein is, admittedly, the wife of the present petitioner, the learned Court has not committed any illegality in directing payment of Rs. 1,500/-, per month, as maintenance pendente lite, by the present petitioner to the opposite-party. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not f ind that the impugned order, dated 05.03.2011, suffers from any infirmity, factu al or legal. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand d ismissed. No order as to costs.