IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 714 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.2.2010 Vijay Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Nirmala Rani @ Priti Gupta ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. APS Srawaan, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned Court below whereby in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 during the pendency of divorce petition learned Court below fixed the interim maintenance at Rs. 3,500/- per month. In addition to that Rs. 2,500/- were granted on account of litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case is merely earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and it is not possible for him to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500/.- per month to the respondent-wife. In support of the arguments certificate Annexure P-4 issued by Virk Industries, Ludhiana dated 17.5.1993 has been placed on record showing the salary of the petitioner as Rs. 2,125/- per month. Further jamabandis have been referred to as Annexures P-2 and P3 to state that the respondent in the present case owns some land also. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is not only that the respondent is to maintain herself but even two grown up children, though minor are also living with her. Rs. 3,500/- per month cannot be said to be on higher side which the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent as interim maintenance. If the respondent along with her two children would have stayed with the petitioner, may be he has to spent more amount. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 3.2.2010 JUDGE Reema