Civil Revision No.968 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.968 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : February 10, 2011 Dr.Rakesh Khuller ... Petitioner VERSUS Kanika Khuller ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The petitioner Dr.Rakesh Khuller (herein referred as `the petitioner') assails the order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Patiala awarding interim maintenance to the respondent Kanika Khuller (herein referred as `the respondent') @ Rs.10,000/- per month during the pendency of a suit for maintenance filed by her under Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 (for brevity `the Act') During the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent under the Act, an application for maintenance pendente lite was filed, which was accepted and maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded to the respondent, who is the daughter of the petitioner. The respondent has no means to maintain herself. After passing 10+2 examination in non-medical stream, she is studying in the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh. She is unmarried and her mother's income Civil Revision No.968 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] is less than Rs.9000/- per month. In the circumstances, it appears that she being an unmarried daughter, unable to maintain herself, is essentially requiring money for continuing her studies by regularly paying tuition fees, university fees, books and day-to-day needs, including the expenses of the hostel, where she is staying. Thus, she has claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. To the contrary, the petitioner denied the allegations. The Trial Court awarded interim maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Heard. The respondent is a homeopathic doctor and his basic salary is Rs.27,800/-. Thus, he must be getting gross salary of about Rs.50,000/-. He is father of the respondent and, thus, legally bound to maintain her. The respondent being the unmarried daughter could claim maintenance from either of her parents. Thus, keeping in view the growing career of the respondent, her necessity to pay expenses for the hostel facility, university fee, tuition fee, clothes and other day-to-day requirements, cannot be ignored by the petitioner. All these considerations compel this court to hold that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is not on the higher side. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. February 10, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE