Civil Revision No. 8052 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8052 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 23rd, 2011 Anil Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Vanita .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Anil Kumar, the husband, who has brought a petition under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short, “the Act”) against his wife, Vanita, is in revision before me under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P7) vide which learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar allowed the application of Vanita, filed under section 36 of the Act and fixed maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is not necessary to go through the cause of the matrimonial discord between the parties. It would suffice to say that in a petition for decree of divorce brought by the husband, his wife Vanita filed an application under section 36 of the Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite in a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and litigation expenses in a sum of Civil Revision No. 8052 of 2011 2 .. Rs.20,000/-. She has claimed in her application that she is a household lady and has no source of income. According to her, her husband is a man of means and is working in Dubai and earning more than Rs.60,000/- per month. The application is opposed by the husband denying the applicant to be a household lady. According to him, he is a bartender in a hotel at Dubai and is earning 1200 dirhams per month, equivalent to Rs. 14,400/-. According to him, it is very difficult for him to make his both ends meet with this amount. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar has allowed the application and ordered a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the wife as maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. I have heard Mr. Prateek Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. My attention is directed to the document, Annexure P6, vide which the salary of Anil Kumar, petitioner is shown to be 1200 dirhams. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the equivalent of this amount in Indian rupees is 14,400/-. He has submitted that this a very small amount with which it is difficult for the petitioner to make both ends meet and that he is not in a position to spare any amount for the respondent. He has submitted that the amount awarded by learned Additional District Judge is on a higher side and it is liable to be reduced. I am not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Although, the document before me proving the petitioner Civil Revision No. 8052 of 2011 3 .. to be earning the equivalent of Rs. 14,400/- is yet to be proved by leading evidence, yet the fact remains that the petitioner is staying in Dubai where living is very costly and it cannot be believed that he is staying there for this petty amount. Even if it is taken that he is earning 1200 dirhams, it is his responsibility to maintain his wife. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the wife is having income sufficient for her maintenance. The amount awarded by learned Additional District Judge is only 1/3rd of the income of the petitioner and there is no good ground for reducing this amount to any extent. I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 23rd, 2011 som