IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.182 of 2009 Date of decision : 18.5.2009. Sandeep Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Meenakshi Rani . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood,Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla on the application of respondent under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’) in a divorce petition of petitioner filed against respondent under Section 13 (1)of the Act. 2. It has been alleged that the petitioner had been paying maintenance to respondent and son Arpit at the rate of Rs. 1000/- each in compliance to order dated 31.5.2007 passed in Cr.MMO No.8 of 2007. It has been submitted that additional maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes. month along with Rs. 8000/- as litigation expenses awarded by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order are on the higher side. It has been submitted that after the impugned order dated 12.9.2008, the respondent vide office order dated 7.11.2008 of Directorate of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh has been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) and, therefore, the maintenance awarded by the learned Additional District Judge requires modification. 3. The learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has observed that petitioner has denied that he was getting Rs.18,000/- per month but he has not stated how much salary he is getting. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge has taken the salary of the petitioner Rs.18000/- per month. The office order dated 7.11.2008 was not before the learned Additional District Judge when he passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that keeping in view the income of the petitioner, the interim maintenance allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order is on the higher side. The maintenance allowed by the learned Additional District Judge is interim measure. In case the petitioner wants modification of the order dated 12.9.2008 on the basis of aforesaid office order dated 7.11.2008, he may file appropriate application in the Court below, who shall decide such application, if filed, in accordance with law. No error of jurisdiction has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order, resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, so also CMP No.110 of 2009. May 18, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.