By the Court.—Heard Sri M.M. Salman, learned counsel for the appellant.

Inspite of service of notice, respondent has not put in appearance. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the present appeal with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 involves the substantial question of law as to whether in a suit filed by a person belonging to muslim community for restitution of conjugal rights, Family Court may grant interim maintenance and cost of litigation?

3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that under the provisions of Muslim Personal Law, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance pendente-lite or the cost of litigation.

4. The brief matrix of the case, are that the appellant and the respondent had entered into wedlock on 23rd November, 2005, in accordance to ritual/ ceremony prescribed under the Muslim’s Personal Law. After wedlock, the appellant and respondent were residing as husband and wife. However, it appears that because of bitter relationship, the respondent-wife had gone to her Maika. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad. The copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the appeal.

5. A perusal of the plaint filed with the appeal, reveals that the marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 23rd November, 2005 under the Muslim Personal Law and because of some quarrel between the husband and wife, the respondent had gone to her Maika on 22nd December, 2007, hence, the suit was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad. The respondent put in appearance and moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure claiming maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-

6. An objection(Annexure No. 3 to the appeal) was filed by the appellant with the submission that the respondent’s father, Mr. Israr Khan, lives in Saudi Arabia and he is a rich person and has got sufficient source of livelihood and hence, he is well rich to provide necessary assistance to the respondent.

7. It has further been stated that the appellant is a labourer and he is ready to keep the respondent with him. There appears no justification for payment of maintenance or the cost of litigation.

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has already moved an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in which no maintenance has been granted. However, the matter is pending for adjudication. It has been further stated that an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was moved by the respondent which was decided in her favour directing the appellant to pay maintenance/expense at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed. Hence, the appellant preferred a revision in which by an interim order, this Court has provided to pay expense to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

8. It has been stated that the appellant is complying with the order passed by this Court and paying Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad has gone through the record and after providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties, directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month and the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad has relied upon the pleadings on record to the effect that during the course of solemnization of marriage, the father of respondent had given ornaments, costly clothes and utensils etc. and keeping in view the fact that solemnization of marriage between the parties, was costly affair, the appellant’s financial status seems to be sound, hence, directed to pay the maintenan