(£^ M COURT OF JUDICATURE CHKATTES6ARH: BILASPUS COROM Hon'ble iisceii AoDellant Versus of2! Smt. Sniriti Bela Marble W/o 6. W. Aterble and &/o ft.S. Kuldeep, aged about 44 years, ft/o. Qr. No. 85 R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara, Raipur (C.S.) Responder &W. Marble 5/o B.L. aged about 48 years, R/o-'Qr. No. 10/b Street43, Sector-10, Bhilai Nagar, District burg (C.6.) presen' Shri Jitendra fiupta, tearned counsel with Shri N.K. learned counse' for the oppeilant. Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the resp OR.4LOR&E rth The foliowing ora! order of the C.ourt was passed by The qiplication moved by the appellsnt herein under Ssction 36 "Sf tiie Indian Divorce Act for granting litigation expenses towards u man who has been accompanyin9 her to 1+ie Court in prosecuting her case, has been rejected by 1+ie Court below by the impugnsd order on -rtie ground 1+idt the appe'lant is also an \» employee in Telecom Dspartment and she has mesns to bear the expenses. Even before us, quite curious'y, the appellant is not fair enough to disclose her income os an employee of the T-1 Telecom Depar+ment, but, she is carefu! enough to mention the Income of her husband in al! the pleadings. 2. In the course of hearing, we made enquiries from the learned counsel for the appellant in+iether there are issues out of the wedlock between the appellant and 1+ie respondent csnd he would te!l us that there are no issues. If thfe husband and wife are employees in Tetecom Department and earning their sslaries, sin'iply because, she hdS been coming to tt+tend the Court proceedings with a man to provide escort to her, circumstance could not be a ground to seek litigation expenses. te that as it may, tiiere is absolutely no good ground made out which would appea! to us to exercise the discretion vested in this Court in fayour of the appe!!ant. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bab!u