JUDGMENT : A.S. Qureshi, J. The petitioner here is the husband and the respondent No. 2 is the wife. This petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 1984 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (19th Court) Ahmedabad, allowing the revision of the present respondent No. 2 and setting aside the order dated 29-11-1983 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The proceedings had arisen out of the application of the present petitioner in the application filed by the respondent-wife for the payment of arrears of maintenance. The present petitioner had applied to the learned Magistrate for permission to lead evidence against the payment of the arrears of maintenance. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application. The said order of the learned Magistrate has been set aside by the Sessions Court. 2. This matter has been pending before this Court for quite some time. The parties were present personally and an effort was made to settle the matter amicably. On account of the attitude taken by the present petitioner, it was not possible to settle the matter. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is tenable in law and there is no substance in the present revision application. However, Mr. A. D. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. The permission stands disposed of as withdrawn. 3. Mr. N.V. Solanki, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, says that his client has been put to unnecessary expenses in this Court as well as in the Sessions Court. According to him, this is solely due to the callous attitude of the petitioner-husband and therefore the respondent-wife should be awarded a compensatory cost. Mr. Solanki urges that the respondent No. 2 may be awarded Rs. 500 by way of costs. Mr. A. D. Shah has urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has only availed of the remedy open to him in law and therefore the costs may not be awarded. In the circumstances of the case, it seems that the respondent-wife should be awarded costs. The petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs 500 as and by way of costs to the respondent-wife within four weeks from today. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.