IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6356 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2011. Sanjeev Kumar Goyal ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Ridhi ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.L.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.09.2010, Annexure P3 vide which learned Additional District Judge, Moga directed the petitioner-husband to pay `5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife besides `40,000/- as medical expenses and `5500/- as litigation expenses on an application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the ‘Act’). CR No.6356 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.08.2000. Two children were born out of the wedlock. There is no dispute that parties are living separate. Divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act has been filed by petitioner-husband against respondent-wife. Both the children are living with petitioner-husband. There is also no dispute that petitioner- husband is running a Chemist Shop at Moga. Petitioner-husband has placed on record copies of Income Tax Returns for the years 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010. He is having 50% share in M/s Shiv Shakti Pharma i.e. chemist shop and the other 50% share is of his father. However, he has shown his income only to the tune of `1,25,000/- per annum as per Income Tax Return. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has to keep and maintain two children and has to incur expenditure on their education. However, this fact has not been taken into consideration by learned Additional District Judge, Moga while passing the impugned order. Hence, it is contended that ad-interim maintenance fixed by learned trial Court is on higher side and even the amount determined for payment as medical expenses is also on higher side. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-wife that she met with an accident and became handicapped. She was turned out of matrimonial home by petitioner-husband by keeping both the children with him about four years ago and since then, she has been 2 CR No.6356 of 2010 residing with her parents. Further contended that she had suffered bodily injury in the accident and it is very difficult for her to walk or stand. Further contended that even she has to go from Barnala to Moga where the case is pending and that it is difficult for her to board a bus. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay `5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife besides `40,000/- as medical expenses and `5500 as litigation expenses. The respondent-wife has become handicapped. She requires constant medical treatment as is clear from the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It is difficult for her to board a bus. It is also difficult for her to walk or stand. She has to go from Barnala to Moga to attend the hearing of the case. Admittedly, petitioner-husband is running a chemist shop in which he is having 50% share. Further, as per Income Tax Return filed by him, his income is `1,25,000/- per annum. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-wife that he has concealed his income and that he is earning much more. He is also having immoveable property including the shop in which chemist shop is being run. Respondent- wife has to incur recurring expenditure on her treatment. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed 3 CR No.6356 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 28, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4