Dismissed¶16

Manoj Kumar v. Anuradha Kamlesh

Patna HC22 Jul 2025C.Misc./1938/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1938 of 2017 (decided 22-07-2025, Arun Kumar Jha, J.); litigation cost in matrimonial case; Family Court Munger, Matrimonial Case No. 257 of 2015; Rs.10,000/- one time litigation cost; Rs.1,000/- per date cost; Locomotive Pilot salary Rs.44,000/- per month; cost order held not excessive; petition dismissed; impugned order affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The direction to pay Rs.10,000/- as one time litigation amount and Rs.1,000/- on each date cannot be said to be excessive, especially as the petitioner, a Locomotive Pilot in the Railway, admittedly gets a salary of Rs.44,000/- per month before deduction. ¶15

Manoj Kumar Vs Anuradha Kamlesh — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1938 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Om Prakash Tanti, Resident of Mohalla- Bari Ashiqpur, Jamalpur, P.S.- East Colony, District- Munger.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Anuradha Kamlesh D/o Late Mr. Kamleshwar Prasad, Resident of Gauri Sadan, Janta More Mohanpur Near Rly No.2, School Keshopur, P.S.Jamalpur, District- Munger.

¶7

... ... Respondent/s

¶8

======================================================

¶9

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s :	Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate Mr.
=================== CORAM: HONOURABL ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-07-2025	=================================== E MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Matrimonial Case No. 257 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay lump sum of Rs.10,000/- as one time litigation cost and Rs.1,000/- on each date to the respondent from the date of order till the disposal of the case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Locomotive Pilot and he has been getting meager sum after deduction but this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Court.

¶13

Without going into further submission made on

¶14

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1938 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025 2/2

¶15

behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that the order directing the petitioner to pay lump sum of Rs.10,000/- as one time litigation amount and Rs.1,000/- on each date to the respondent from the date of order till the disposal of the case cannot be said to be excessive and further when it is admitted that the petitioner being a Locomotive Pilot in Railway has been getting salary of Rs.44,000/- per month before deduction, this fact becomes much apparent.

¶16

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 and the same is affirmed. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

¶17

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶18

DKS/-

¶19

AFR/NAFR	AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	23.07.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Manoj Kumar v. Anuradha Kamlesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Anuradha Kamlesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheikh Imam Hasan Alias Imam Hasan and Anr. Vs Sheikh Nazarul and Ors.

Annpurna Devi Vs Vashisth Narayan Singh @ Karu Singh

Amar Nath Prasad and Ors. Vs Dilip Kumar and Ors.

Ashish Kumar Abhishek Vs Reena Devi

Nurul Hoda Vs Smt. Anarkali Devi and Anr.

Achutanand Singh Vs Most. Krishna Devi and Ors.