IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1441 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus Shifali @ Sita Devi. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. Daljit Singh Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The grievance presented on behalf of the petitioner- husband is two fold. One facet of the grievance is with regard to the twice award of litigation expenses by the learned Trial Court. The other facet is to the effect that the amount of maintenance pendente-lite awarded is excessive in character. Insofar as the former part of the grievance is concerned, it deserves to be allowed. The reasons therefor are as under:- Initially, while allowing a similar plea in favour of the respondent-wife (and against the petitioner-husband), learned Trial Court had held that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be payable to the wife as litigation expenses (order dated C.R. No. 1441 of 2010 28.03.2009 – Annexure P/1)). The matter came up thereafter before this Court which directed disposal of the controversy afresh (Order dated 08.01.2010 granted by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2621 of 2009 – Annexure P/12). While allowing that application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh, the learned Trial Court (vide order dated 01.02.2010) ordered that a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the respondent-wife as litigation expenses. By the very nature of things, litigation expenses could not be awarded in favour of the respondent-wife on two occasions. It is ordered, in the circumstances of the case, that the respondent-wife shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- only as a litigation expenses. Insofar as the quantification of the maintenance pendente-lite is concerned, it cannot be faulted on any valid score. It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings of the parties that there was a specific averment made by the wife that the petitioner-husband has, as a member of a HUF, income from various family business concerns. That plea had not been specifically denied in the corresponding para of the reply. The petitioner-husband opted to place on record copies of the income tax return filed by one HUF concern. Once a precise averment had been made by the respondent-wife and it had not been rebutted by the petitioner-husband, it would be inferred that the averment had not been rebutted at all. Thus, no interference with the 2 C.R. No. 1441 of 2010 amount of maintenance pendente-lite awarded by the learned Trial Court is required. The learned counsel, however, has a point when he states that the delayed disposal of the divorce petition shall be quite onerous to the husband who may have to thereby pay the amount of maintenance pendente-lite for a longer duration. In that context, it is pointed out that five witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the petitioner – husband and it is only the latter (i.e. the petitioner – husband) who is to be examined as his own witness. The learned counsel further assures that the petitioner-husband shall be examined before the learned Trial Court on 06.04.2010. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial by or on 31.07.2010, after affording an equal number of opportunities to the parties aforementioned. Disposed of accordingly. March 11, 2010 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 3