IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2297 of 2009. Date of Decision : 15.1.2010. Manav Bhardwaj ......Petitioner Versus Isha alias Monika Bhardwaj & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the order dated March 21st, 2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby, an amount of Rs.4000/- and Rs.1000/- per month was awarded as maintenance pendente-lite to respondents No.1 and 2 (wife and son) respectively on an application filed by respondents under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') in petition file by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial Judge ignored the income of the respondent-wife which was Rs.8000/- per month and since she was an earning hand, she should not have been allowed maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.4000/- and Rs.1000/- to the son. The respondent-wife along with her son, who is a student of 4th standard, is residing in a rented house in Ludhiana. She had paid fee of the child at the rate of Rs.3940/- for two months besides computer fee of Rs.450/-per month. It is the prime duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children. One cannot lose sight of the fact that it is a case of maintenance pendente-lite during the pendency of the petition filed by the husband against the wife. The cost of living has increased manifold. It is established principle of law that while dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 24 of the Act, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the wife or the husband as the case may be to prevent destitution. The petitioner himself has pleaded that he invested Rs.15 lacs in a firm in the name and style Usha Trading but he has suffered huge losses due to the attitude of the respondent-wife. He has also placed on record a salary certificate issued by a shipping agency, whereby, he was paid salary at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. In view of the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is proper and justified and no interference is called for. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.1.2010. SN