IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.698 of 2009 Date of decision : June 30, 2010 Janeshwar Banshtu …Petitioner. Versus Reena …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage with respondent, by a decree of divorce, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent moved an application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of maintenance. That application was allowed, vide order dated 28th August, 2008 and maintenance pendente lite, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month, was awarded, with effect from the date of the application, i.e. 30th June, 2008. 2. Petitioner was afforded a number of opportunities to lead evidence, in support of his petition, after the framing of issues. He did not avail of those opportunities. On 3rd March, 2009, he did not even put in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… appearance and the petition was dismissed in default. Lateron, he moved an application for restoration of the petition. That application was allowed on 29th October, 2009 and the matter was posted for his evidence on 16th December, 2009, on which date again his evidence was not present and he moved an application for modification of order of maintenance, dated 28th August, 2008, so as to reduce the amount of maintenance, alleging that he was underemployed and did not have sufficient income to pay the maintenance money. That application was dismissed on the very day of its presentation. 3. Now, grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court has dismissed the application, without even calling for a reply from the respondent or affording him any opportunity to prove the averments made in the application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. There is no provision for modification of an order of maintenance pendente lite, so as to reduce the amount of maintenance. Section 25 sub-section (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, upon which reliance is being placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is attracted when modification of a final order of maintenance, passed under Section 25(1) of the Hindu …3… Marriage Act, at the time of final disposal of the petition for divorce or judicial separation, etc., is sought. In view of the abovestated position, petition is dismissed. June 30, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J