IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4598 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 17, 2009 Dharminder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Anita ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon on 1.5.2009 while accepting the application of the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance has been challenged in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Out of the aforementioned amount of Rs.3,500/- per month, the lower Court granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- for the respondent-wife, while remaining amount of Rs.1,500/- for Karan, son of the parties, who is presently living with the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is gainfully employed in Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Civil Revision No.4598 of 2009 -2- Limited. She is an income tax assessee and filing her income tax returns regularly. As per income tax return for the assessment year 2005-06, she had an annual income of Rs.1,04,984, whereas, for the assessment year 2006-07, the income was Rs.1,34,220/-. Even thereafter, the respondent is having regular income from her employment as an agent of Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited though the petitioner has not been able to obtain the returns submitted by the respondent for the subsequent years. Therefore, it could not be said that the respondent is not having sufficient regular income so as to maintain herself and her minor child. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that though the respondent was earlier having regular income when she was employed with Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited but since June, 2008 she is having no income as she has not been able to provide any business to the Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited. Therefore, learned lower Court was justified in directing the payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- to her for her own maintenance and another amount of Rs.1,500/- for the maintenance of her minor child. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been able to place on the record any material to show that the respondent has earned any amount after 1.4.2006. The income tax returns [Annexure P.3 (collectively)] brought on the record end with the assessment year 2006-07. At the same time, the respondent has also not denied the fact that she had been continuing to work for the Insurance Company even subsequent to 1.4.2006. However, according to her, she is not been having any income Civil Revision No.4598 of 2009 -3- since June, 2008. Thus, she can legitimately claim the amount of maintenance. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that he is having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife is not supposed to lead a miserable life and can be expected to live a life with all the comforts which she had been enjoying when she lived with her husband. In such a situation, the petitioner-husband is supposed to maintain her and the minor child of the parties also. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month, the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded to the respondent-wife as maintenance is slightly on the higher side as after adding an amount of Rs.1,500/- to the same, which is required to be paid for maintenance of the minor child, the husband would be required to shell out an amount beyond 1/3rd of his income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the husband can be asked to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife. However, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order granting an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month for the maintenance of the minor son. Resultantly, the revision is partly allowed by directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month in all for maintenance of the respondent-wife and minor child from the date of the application under Section 24 of the Act till the decision of the petition under Section 13 of the Act. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 17, 2009 JUDGE satish