Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 Gulzar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Smt. Paramjit Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri H.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the trial Court on 4.9.2009, whereby a sum of Rs.3000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife, from the date of filing of the application for setting aside of an exparte judgment and decree and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The sole argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that only 3 acres of land is owned by the petitioner. Therefore, the maintenance of Rs.3000/- p.m. granted to the respondent-wife is excessive as 3 acres of land is sufficient from its income only to maintain the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 6003 of 2009 [2] During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is residing with three grown up children and it is the respondent, who is to maintain all the children. Admittedly, the petitioner is an able bodied person and is also owner of the agricultural land. The allegation of the respondent is that the petitioner is earning Rs.50,000/- p.m.. The learned trial Court awarded maintenance to the respondent-wife so as to avoid the starvation of the respondent-wife as also the children during the pendency of the application. The trial Court has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. as maintenance keeping in view the extent of family, which the respondent-wife is supposed to maintain. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the respondent and his children during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20-10-2009 ds