Civil Revision No.4375 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4375 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.07.2011 Naveen Pahwa ......Petitioner Versus Priyanka Pahwa .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ram Chander, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts of the case, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Naveen Pahwa son of Yashpal Pahwa-petitioner-husband filed a petition against his wife Priyanka Pahwa-respondent-wife, for dissolution of their marriage, by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. During the course of pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent-wife moved an application for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, invoking the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, which was partly accepted by the trial Judge, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.05.2011. 3. The petitioner husband did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. Civil Revision No.4375 of 2011 2 5. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner-husband has filed the divorce petition against his wife under Section 13 of the Act. The trial Court awarded an amount of `4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and `2500/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife, through the medium of impugned order dated 12.05.2011, which in substance is, as under:- “Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the applicant has relied upon income tax returns of the respondent for the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 and the respondent has relied upon VAT forms 15 for the period 1.1.2010 to 31.3.2010, 1.4.2010 to 30.04.2010, 1.10.09 to 31.12.09, CST form for the period 1.7.09 to 30.09.09 and other documents. So taking into consideration the documents relied upon by both the parties, as both the parties are not disclosing the true facts regarding income, so, the court is to make its own assessment. So taking into consideration the facts of case and status of parties, the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is allowed granting maintenance to applicant-Priyanka to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing application and Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.” 6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner-husband is already paying `3,000/- per month to his wife, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, granted by the Magistrate, Jalandhar, by means of order dated 19.03.2009. 7. Learned counsel did not point out that how and in what manner, any manifest injustice has occasioned to the petitioner and the maintenance amount is exorbitant. 8. After taking into consideration the material on record and the income tax returns of the petitioner-husband, the trial Court has only awarded `4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and `2500/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife and recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this relevant behalf. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and Civil Revision No.4375 of 2011 3 without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 21, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE