Civil Revision No.4516 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4516 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Sandeep Singh ….Petitioner Versus Jagdip Kaur and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is husband’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, whereby maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month in favour of wife-respondent No.1 and Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor son along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- has been awarded. Challenging the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the basic salary of the petitioner is Rs.10,080/- per month and he has burden of responsibility of his old parents on his shoulder. Both the parents of the petitioner are old and sick and moreover respondent NO.2 who is the minor son of the petitioner cannot be allowed maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. There is no doubt that respondent No.1 has got right to claim maintenance pendente lite from her husband. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of Rs.2000/- per month awarded in favour of - Civil Revision No.4516 of 2010 respondent No.1-wife out of basic salary of Rs.10,080/- per month was on the higher side, keeping in view that the parents of the petitioner are old and dependent upon him. The argument is noticed only to be rejected. As per stand taken by respondent No.1, petitioner is earning Rs.24,498/- per month, as per the salary statement placed on record. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in this view of the matter it cannot be held that the amount granted to the respondent-wife is on the higher side or excessive. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2, who is the son of the petitioner cannot be granted maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is again misplaced, as under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance can be granted to the minor children in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, pending between husband and wife. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. 22.07.2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vcgarg JUDGE -