JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘petitioner'), being aggrieved of the order dated 26th February, 2014, passed in M.T.S. No. 28/2012 whereby he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses on an application moved by respondent-wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, knocked the doors of Writ Court through the medium of W.P(C) No. 2447 of 2014, taking the plea that he has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife had never cohabited with him and she was in-fact pregnant before the marriage was solemnized. The said writ petition now stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.08.2015 handed down by learned Single Judge, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal which is at admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Burnwal S. Lall, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife. We have also gone through the impugned order and the other documents available on the memo of appeal. 3. Learned Senior counsel contended that in the impugned order, there is no whisper about the income of the respondent-wife and it appears that hurriedly the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Writ Court without taking into account all the aspects especially the most vital issue that if the marriage is void under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, question of making any payment as maintenance or litigation expenses does not arise. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that in-fact the petitioner is dependent upon his parents and is not earning anything, therefore, not in a position to maintain the respondent-wife at all. 4. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner; whether the marriage is void or not; the said issue is yet to be adjudicated upon, therefore, no finding can be returned in this regard. So far as the maintenance part is concerned, the categoric case of the respondent-wife is that the petitioner is running a hotel at Jhumri Telaiya. So far as the maintenance part is concerned, the categoric case of the respondent-wife is that the petitioner is running a hotel at Jhumri Telaiya. May be the aspect that the respondent-wife is also earning, is not discussed by the learned Writ Court, in our considered view, would not make any difference as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has considered the earning of the petitioner and the respondent-wife and thereafter directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, which amount does not appear to be a huge amount on the face of it. So far as litigation expenses are concerned, the amount fixed as Rs. 15,000/- is also a very reasonable amount. 5. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Writ Court affirming the order of the learned Family Court does not suffer from any infirmity calling for our indulgence. 6. The appeal on hand merits dismissal, at this stage. Ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.