Civil Revision No.6101 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6101 of 2007 Date of Decision: November 27, 2007 Shakti Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Reema .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. As per the finding, the petitioner-husband owns two killas of land and is also a holder of a fair price Depot. As noticed by the learned Trial Court, there was complete want of evidence to prove that the shop was lying closed for the last 1-1/2 years. If the shop was lying closed, the petitioner-husband could have obtained certification from the Food and Supply Authorities with regard to the non-supply of the ration to the Depot. The petitioner-husband did not take any steps to prove that fact. 2. The monthly income of the petitioner-husband was assessed at Rs.5,000/-. While noticing that the respondent-wife has no means of sustenance for self and her minor child, monthly pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- from the date of the application was ordered to be payable, along with the Civil Revision No.6101 of 2007 -2- litigation expenses of Rs.3,300/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has not been able to persuade me to find any fault with the impugned order. 4. Every able-bodied husband is legally duty bound to maintain a resourceless wife who has no means of sustenance of her own. In the present age of high prices, the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive, particularly when the respondent-wife is also to pay for the upkeep of the minor child. 5. Dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) November 27, 2007 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No `