ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 12-11-1997 t directing the respondent to pay Rs 10,000 on account of meher. Against the said order when the Sessions Court was moved by the appellant, that application was allowed, the order passed by the trial court was set aside and it was directed that the appellant shall be entitled to meher amount to the tune of Rs 50,000 on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant that at the time of marriage the meher amount was fixed at Rs 49,999. It further directed to return all the ornaments. Against the said order when the High Court was moved, by the impugned order, the aforesaid order passed by the Revisional Court has been set aside and that passed by the trial court restored on the grounds inter alia that the revision application was barred by limitation and counsel for the appellant having accepted the amount awarded by the trial court, the appellant was estopped from challenging the order of the trial a court before the higher court. Against the said order, the present appeal by special leave has been filed. 4. Having heard the parties and perused the impugned order, we are of the view that though according to the High Court there was only two days' delay in moving the Sessions Court but as a matter of fact there was eight days' delay in filing the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we e are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Court on this ground. Second ground which weighed with the High Court for setting aside the order of the Sessions Court was estoppel with regard to which it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that the appellant's counsel accepted the amount but she has not received the amount. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was not f justified in setting aside the order on the ground of estoppel. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was not f justified in setting aside the order on the ground of estoppel. That apart, on merits as there was credible evidence adduced in the case to the effect that at the time of marriage, meher amount was fixed at Rs 49,999, we are of the view that the Sessions Court was justified in enhancing the amount from Rs 10,000 to Rs 50,000 and the High Court has committed an error in reversing the said order. 9 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the same passed by the Sessions Court fixing the meher amount at Rs 50,000 and giving consequential directions for return of the ornaments is restored.