KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. SUDHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was informed about the order dated 23rd July, 2012 by sending information by registered post. However, that registered post has been returned back with endorsement that addressee is not residing on that address. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he himself talked with the appellant and informed him about the order dated 23rd July, 2012 and direction to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent but he did not contact him.

(2.) IN view of above reasons, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed for non-prosecution and because of non-compliance of order dated 23rd July, 2012. However, it is made clear that the respondent will be entitled to recover the amount of litigation cost imposed on 23rd July, 2012 by this Court..

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant pointed out that Trial Court awarded interim maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4000/- per month vide order dated 22nd July, 2002. However, this amount has been reduced in the appellant's writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2002 vide order dated 24.06.2004 from Rs. 4000/- per month to Rs. 3000/- per month. The respondent-wife thereafter filed another petition for enhancement of alimony from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month as the salary of the appellant-husband was enhanced and the cost of living was also increased. But that petition of the respondent-wife was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 19th April, 2007 on the ground that petitioner- husband had already preferred L.P.A before the High Court and matter is subjudice.