IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 985 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2009 Netra Pal ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Sunita ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January 31, 2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent-wife has been granted maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month in addition to Rs. 7,500/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount awarded by learned Court below is on the higher side. The petitioner is merely working as a Pheriwala collecting scrap. His income is not more than Rs. 3000/- per month and under the situation it is not possible for him to bear the burden of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance payable to the respondent/wife. He further submitted that the respondent/wife lived with the petitioner merely for two months. However, a child was born nearly 1 ½ years after she left the matrimonial home. Prima-facie the petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent as after leaving the matrimonial home she was living in adultery. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to record a definite finding as to whether the respondent/ wife is living in adultery or not as the issue is pending consideration before the learned Court below in the petition filed by respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. As far as award of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent/wife is concerned, the same has been assessed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business of scrap. He is owning shop in Sanjay Colony, Delhi. His father is also in the same business. Keeping these facts, the rough estimate of income was made Rs. 20,000/- per month and on this basis maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month was directed to be paid to the respondent/wife for her maintenance and also of the minor child. It cannot be said to be on higher side. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 25.2.2009 JUDGE Reema