2025:JHHC:31318 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 802 of 2025 ------ Ravindra Kumar Nayak @ Rabindra Kumar Nayak, son of Ruplal Saw, resident of Village Kamlapur, P.O. Ponda, Ponra, P.S. Kasmar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Priyanka Kumari @ Punam, daughter of Laldhan Saw, resident of Village Sikni, P.O. Sikni, P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate Order No.08 / Dated : 09.10.2025 Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat in connection O.S. Case No.308 of 2022, whereby and whereunder Rs.1500/- has been awarded as litigation cost under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on each date fixed in the case. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the order is vague and litigation cost is fixed for every date when the case is fixed, irrespective of the fact that if the opposite party appeared on the said date or not. Petitioner has no objection to pay the litigation cost incurred to the opposite party for appearing before the learned Family Court, on dates when she appears for hearing. However, payment of litigation cost even when the opposite party has not appeared before the learned Family Court, defies any reason. 3. It is further argued that the petitioner being the husband initially filed the suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, but it was subsequently converted under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the marriage had been solemnized by concealing the previous marriage of the opposite party. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party defends the impugned order. It is argued that more than three years have elapsed since passing of the order, but not a single penny has been paid nor any amount has been 2025:JHHC:31318 paid to the opposite party for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5. It is further argued that the petitioner is having a hotel on the National Highway having per day income of Rs.10,000/-. It is further contended that the petitioner has to come to the Court by hiring a vehicle along with the minor child born from the wedlock resulting in daily expense of Rs.2000/-. 6. I find substance in this submission on behalf of the petitioner that litigation cost can be made payable only on the dates when the opposite party appears before Family Court. These costs are compensatory in nature, and cannot be allowed when the opposite party is not appearing before the Court. In this view of matter, the order is modified to the extent that the litigation cost will be paid only when the opposite party has appeared before the Family Court and is certified as such. 7. Thus, the petitioner would be liable to pay litigation cost from the date of order to the opposite party subject to the certification by the Court of her physical appearance. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly partly allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit