IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.78 of 2003. Date of decision:21.04.2009. Garja Ram …Petitioner Versus Kalan Devi & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the husband against the order passed by the learned trial Court in an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, preferred by respondents Kalan Devi and Kumari Neelam, wife and daughter of the petitioner herein. On the pleadings of the parties and after consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court fixed the maintenance at Rs.2,500/- per month i.e. Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the daughter. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 It is undisputed before me that daughter, respondent No.2 herein, was married in the month of July, 2007 and as such is not entitled to any maintenance from that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a number of submissions on the legality of the order passed. Taking the second ground urged by the learned counsel that the evidence on record clearly establishes that both the respondents were earning from the business of tailoring and milk vending etc. and as such the learned trial Court was in error in awarding the maintenance, I do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned trial Court as there is no evidence on the record to substantiate this plea save and except the bald statement of the petitioner herein that his daughter was earning by stitching clothes etc. and his wife was earning by selling milk. One other aspect needs to be considered, that is, if the respondents are being neglected and not maintained, it is but obvious that they would do some work to eke out a living and not be reduced to penury by the appellant. This contention is, therefore, rejected. On the second contention of the learned counsel that the petition itself was not maintainable as advalorem Court fee was not affixed. I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the modification that the order passed by the learned trial Court is varied to the extent that no maintenance will now be required to be paid to the daughter as she already stands married. No order 3 as to costs. All applications are disposed of. All interim orders are vacated. April 21, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.