Civil Revision No. 3877 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3877 of 2007 Date of decision : February 19, 2010 Raj Kumari alias Dali ....Petitioner versus Satpal ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Narinder Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Raj Kumari alias Dali has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 20.4.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby petitioner's husband Satpal respondent has been directed to pay Rs 1000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite and Rs 2000/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner on her application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). The instant revision petition has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses. Respondent has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Act. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 3877 of 2007 -2- application under section 24 of the Act alleging that she has no source of income whereas the respondent-husband is earning Rs 30,000/- per month from business of furniture as also rental income of Rs 4000/-. Respondent in his reply denied the averments of the wife and alleged that he has no income and he is unable to maintain himself. He has filed application under section 125(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against his son claiming maintenance. On the other hand, the petitioner- wife is earning Rs 15,000/- per month from the temple. Learned Additional District Judge observed in the impugned order that the respondent being able bodied person is legally bound to maintain his wife and his income even as manual labourer can be taken to be Rs 3000/- per month. Accordingly, maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs 1000/- per month has been awarded to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is also maintaining unmarried daughter residing with her and therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the District court needs to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is residing in the respondent's house from which the respondent has been ousted. A compromise was effected under police pressure at the instance of the petitioner. There is no material on record to prove the income of the respondent. Consequently, learned Additional District Judge rightly Civil Revision No. 3877 of 2007 -3- assessed the income of the respondent as manual labourer to be Rs 3000/- per month three years ago. Moreover, the petitioner is residing in the house of the respondent who has been ousted from the house. The plea that the petitioner has to maintain the daughter residing with her cannot be accepted in the revision petition because no such plea was taken before the trial court. On the other hand, compromise dated 12.9.2006, Annexure R/1 was admittedly effected between the parties. The petitioner has not challenged the said compromise although respondent has alleged the compromise to have been entered into under police pressure. Perusal of the compromise reveals that as per compromise, the petitioner was allowed to reside in the house of the respondent but at the same time, the petitioner also stated that the respondent would not be responsible for providing any maintenance. In view of said compromise also, the maintenance pendente-lite awarded by the trial court cannot be enhanced. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 19, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'