CR No.7770/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7770/2011 Date of decision: 15.12.2011. Pooja Rani ....................Petitioner v. Sushil Kumar .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Nishant Raj,Advocate for the petitioner-wife Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner-wife has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby she has been granted Rs.750/- per month as maintenance allowance and further granted a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.7.2006. It was alleged by the petitioner wife that she was ill treated by respondent husband and his family members on account of insufficient dowry and that respondent and his family members gave severe beatings to the CR No.7770/2011 2 petitioner wife several times. It was further alleged that petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial home on 19.7.2009 but with the intervention of panchayat she went to her matrimonial home again, however, behaviour of the respondent and his family members did not change and ultimately she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 5.1.2010 and was not allowed to come back. Faced with this situation the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage. Alongwith the said petition she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite which was decided vide impugned order dated 5.10.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-husband is running a shop of greasing heavy vehicles at Transport Nagar, Ganaur and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and thus keeping in view his earning capacity the maintenance granted is on very much lower side. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the learned trial court has erroneously treated respondent husband as a casual labourer and assessed his income at Rs.4200/- per month. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the impugned order, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The respondent husband in reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act has alleged that the petitioner wife is leading adulterous life with one Tinka and that she had withdrawn from the company of the respondent of her own whereas he is ready and wiling CR No.7770/2011 3 to keep and maintain the petitioner wife. It was further alleged by the respondent husband that he had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but the petitioner wife deliberately did not join the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte resulting into passing of an ex parte restitution order against her. Despite that she did not join the company of the respondent husband. As regards the income of the respondent, it was found by the learned trial court, that except bald assertions, petitioner wife did not lead any evidence to prove the income of respondent husband to be Rs.15000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent husband had stated that he was working as a casual labourer and his monthly earning was to the tune of Rs.2000/-. In these circumstance, in my opinion, the learned trial court has rightly granted the maintenance to the petitioner wife and no interference in this regard is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 15.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge