Civil Revision No.951 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.951 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 10, 2011 Naresh Kumar .....Petitioner v. Kiran Garg .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.ADS Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3965-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.951 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 30.7.2010, Annexure P5, passed on application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act') for interim maintenance in main petition under Section 13 of the Act in HMA No.41/15.5.2009 (RBT No.23/7.4.2010) titled as Naresh Kumar v. Kiran Garg, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11.12.2005. The dispute arose, parties separated and a petition for divorce was filed by petitioner-husband against the respondent on 15.5.2009, just after three years of the marriage. As per assertion of respondent-wife, petitioner was running a business concern in the name M/s.National Enterprises, Bhawanigarh, in which he was one of the partners and however, in order to deny ad interim Civil Revision No.951 of 2011(O&M) -2- maintenance to respondent-wife, he retired from the said partnership firm on 1.4.2009, as per retirement deed placed on record by none other than the petitioner-husband. He has also placed on record statement of account of the firm for the year ending 31.3.2007 showing that the firm had earned net profit of Rs.2,57,862/-. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that Rs.4000/- per month interim maintenance is, in any way, excessive in these days of high prices, as respondent-wife is entitled for the same standard of living as she used to enjoy by living in the matrimonial home of the present petitioner-husband. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, in passing the impugned order by awarding Rs.4,000/- per month ad interim maintenance to respondent-wife warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge