CRR No. 2077 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 2077 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.08.2010 Jai Prakash ........ Petitioner Versus Kanta .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S K Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application pending decision of main petition besides Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter had been compromised and admittedly Rs.50,000/- out of the total settled amount of Rs.1,00,000/- stands paid to the respondent. It is further contended that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the interim maintenance as directed by the Family Court. Heard. CRR No. 2077 of 2010 2 It is evident from the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon that the petition under the alleged compromise was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the compromise fell through. With respect to the second argument that he is not earning, cannot help him. As already held by the District Judge, Family Court, even a casual labourer earns Rs.3500/- per month while doing labour work. The petitioner is admittedly an able bodied person and therefore capable of earning the said amount. Accordingly, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance is not excessive and is hardly enough to make both ends meet. No merit. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 03, 2010 mohan