IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 60 of 2010 Surendra Kumar ………. Appellant Versus Smt. Sudesh Kumari …..…. Respondent Present : Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate present for the appellant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. [Oral : Hon’ble Praffulla C. Pant,J. ] Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate present for the appellant. Delay condonation application No. 8437 of 2010 Delay condonation application No.8437 of 2010 is allowed. Delay of 08 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.08.2010 passed by Incharge Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. case No. 59 of 2009, whereby the said court has directed the appellant (husband) to pay litigation expenses amounting to ` 10,000/- and further directed him to pay ` 5,00/-towards travelling 2 charges on every date fixed on which the respondent appears in-person in the court in suit No.42 of 2009 (filed by the husband). The impugned order has been passed by Incharge Judge, Family Court, Haridwar under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) who was incharge, Judge, Family Court, Hardwar, has jurisdiction to pass an impugned order in the light of Notification Misc. No.101-one/Nyay Anubhag/2002 dated 05.04.2002 issued by Government of Uttarakhand, as such, he does not press said point. On merits, it is pleaded on behalf of appellant that the respondent lives in Bhaniyawala (district Dehradun) and a suit for divorce is pending in Haridwar. Considering the short distance between the two places, and the status of the parties, it is unreasonable to direct the appellant to pay ` 500/- per month to the respondent, on every date fixed. The distance between Bhaniyawala and Haridwar is said to be about 30 Kms. and from Haridwar to Roshnabad is about 10 Kms. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is summarily disposed of 3 without disturbing the direction of the trial court directing the appellant to pay amounting ` 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent, but the remaining direction as to the payment of traveling allowance to the respondent on every date when she appears in the court, is modified and the appellant shall pay ` 200/- to the respondent on such dates instead of ` 500/- directed to be paid by the trial court. With this modification, impugned order passed by trial court, this appeal is summarily disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) JKJ 30.09.2010