1 C.M.P. No. 113 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 113 of 2024 ---- Ezajul Ansari @ Ajajul Ansari aged about 33 years son of Mohd. Jalauddin Ansari, r/o Village Mango, PO Tupkadih and PS Balidih, District Bakaro, Jharkhand 827 010. …… …. … Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.Gule Madina Praveen @ Gule Madina Parween, w/o Ezajul Ansari @ Ajajul Ansari, d/o Mohd. Shareef Ansari 2.Riza Naaz, d/o Ezajul Ansari @ Ajajul Ansari, mionr, represented through Gule Madina Parween, Mother cum Natural Guardian Both resident of Village Mango, PO Tupkadih and Ps Balidih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, presently residing at Village Kathara Colony No.4, Sub Station Colony, PO Kathara and PS Gomiya, Distric Bokaro, Jharkhand …… …. …Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Opp. Party no.1 :- Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate ---- 6/20.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Opposite party no.1. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.12.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.141 of 2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat whereby the learned court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) per month as litigation cost to the O.Ps till the final disposal of the said maintenance case, pending in the said learned court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said maintenance case was proceeded ex-parte and the petitioner has filed a petition for recall of the order which has been recalled by the order dated 23.12.2023, however, with a cost of Rs.2000/-. He submits that the order has been passed that cost has to be paid every month to the O.P.No.1 till the disposal of the suit. He 2 C.M.P. No. 113 of 2024 submits that in absence of any interim order or the final order the said order has been passed multiplying the cost for every month. 4. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and since the petitioner was not appearing before the learned court and in view of that the said order was passed. 5. It is an admitted position that the learned court has not come to the conclusion and not passed any order either of interim maintenance or final order, the learned court by the impugned order has been pleased to recall the ex-parte order, however, directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month till disposal of the said petition. In absence of any adjudication that order cannot survive. As such the said order is modified to the effect that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as one time cost and the learned court will proceed to decide the same either on the point of interim order as well as final adjudication in accordance with law. 6. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. 7. Both the parties will cooperate with the learned court in the said proceeding. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/