Civil Revision No. 3728 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3728 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Swaran Singh ..... Petitioner vs Smt. Gagandeep Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by the learned court below allowing the application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) and directing the petitioner husband to pay to the respondent- wife a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses with effect from the date of filing of the application. Briefly the facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Sikh rites on 12.12.1999. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for divorce before the learned District Judge, Karnal. During the pendency of the petition before the learned District Judge, the respondent wife filed application for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses which was allowed vide impugned order dated 3.5.2010. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the husband filed revision before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while fixing the amount of maintenance the learned court below has only considered the facts submitted by the respondent wife and averments of the petitioner were totally ignored. The court below has also ignored the fact that the respondent wife left the minor child and matrimonial home on her own. The petitioner has to maintain the minor child as well. He is owner of the small piece of land and not as much as described by the respondent wife. It was further submitted that the wife is earning handsome amount from the work of art and craft. Civil Revision No. 3728 of 2010 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper- book. The respondent-wife in her application under Section 24 of the Act alleged that she has no source of livelihood to maintain herself. She has also mentioned in his application that custody of the child was forcibly taken away by the husband and not left by her. The divorce petition has been filed by the husband and not by the wife. He has invited her to the litigation so it is the responsibility of the husband to pay the litigation expenses as she has no source of income to defend herself. The husband alleged in his reply that wife knows the work of art and craft and earning handsome amount and thus she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself. Learned court below observed that the wife in support of her application filed affidavit, but the husband did not file any counter affidavit. Obviously, in these circumstances, the stand taken by the wife remained uncontroverted and the reply filed by the husband without being supported by even his own affidavit was of no value. In these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the wife cannot be said to be excessive considering the cost of living nowadays. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 28.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge