IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.445 of 2007 SHANKAR SAH @ SHANKAR KUMAR SAH Versus PUNAM DEVI ----------- 2 20.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of maintenance pendentelite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- consolidated cannot be said to either excessive or illegal. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in either of the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the Court had no power to date back the amount of maintenance from the date of filing of the suit or that the amount of cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- should not have been imposed on the petitioner when the opposite party, wife is filing repeated complaint petition against the petitioner. The first submission must be negated on perusal of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which does not restrict the power of the Court in relation to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of award of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. With regard to the cost of litigation, all that can be observed is that this is a cost of litigation imposed for perusing divorce case and 2 therefore, if the wife has been rightly or wrongly under the impression of being subjected to any other threat or illegality, she has a right to pursue litigation and for that reason, she cannot be deprived from an amount of cost of litigation in the divorce suit. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this civil revision application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)