C.R. No. 7563 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7563 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.12.2011 Bachiter Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Baljit Kaur ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Bachiter Singh-petitioner, preferred this Civil Revision with a prayer to modify the impugned order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner was directed to pay ` 2500/- per month as interim maintenance and ` 8000/- on account of litigation expenses to Baljit Kaur-respondent. Petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short- 'the Act') against his wife Baljit Kaur-respondent. In the divorce petition Baljit Kaur, filed application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of interim maintenance on the allegation that Bachiter Singh-petitioner is owning 12 acres of land. He is the only son of his father living in India. Brothers of Bachiter Singh are living in foreign country. He is earning ` 5 lacs per annum from his agricultural land and C.R. No. 7563 of 2011 -2- ` 25,000/- per month being property dealer. She (Baljit Kaur) has no source of income and cannot maintain herself. In reply to the application, allegation of the petitioner is that he is handicapped person and is earning only ` 3500/- per month. His share in the land was sold by his father and payment was spent for sending him abroad. Baljit Kaur is earning hand and is taking tuitions. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of file, vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2011, petitioner was directed to pay ` 2500/- per month to his wife as interim maintenance and also to pay ` 8000/- towards litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is handicapped and is earning only ` 3500/- per month. Petitioner is maintaining his minor daughter. Being handicap, he cannot pay ` 2500/- per month to his wife and her minor son. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Admittedly, petitioner was married with Baljit Kaur-respondent and from this wedlock there is one son and one daughter. Daughter is residing with the petitioner whereas son is residing with his mother Baljit Kaur-respondent. Divorce petition was filed by the petitioner and the same is pending. Allegation of the petitioner is that he is handicapped and is earning only ` 3500/- per month but no allegation of the petitioner that respondent is earning ` 10,000/- or ` 15,000/- per month. Allegation of the petitioner is that respondent is a earning hand and is taking tuitions. Petitioner was owning land but his allegation is that land was sold by his father. Payment was spent for sending him abroad. Second allegation C.R. No. 7563 of 2011 -3- of the petitioner is that he has been divested from the property by his father but in support of this allegation no proof on the file. Allegation of the petitioner rather shows that petitioner is owning property/land. Respondent along with her minor son is residing separately. No proof that respondent is owning any movable or immovable property. No affidavit of any respectable that respondent is taking tuitions and is earning ` 10,000/- or ` 15,000/- per month. Allegation of the petitioner is that he is a handicap person but no disability certificate has been brought on record. Petitioner being the husband of the respondent is bound to maintain her particularly when respondent is not owning any movable or immovable property. After evidence, Court is to opine whether there is any ground for divorce or not? In case, petitioner is not at fault and is ready to maintain his wife then he should file petition for restitution of conjugal rights instead of filing petition for divorce. Petitioner is earning ` 3500/- per month as per his admission whereas respondent has no source of income and is to maintain her minor son then he is bound to maintain his wife and minor son. As discussed earlier, petitioner is owning land but allegation is that land was sold to visit the foreign country. Regarding sale no document on the file. Parties are not well educated, so, without evidence at this stage, not safe to opine as to which party is at fault but the petitioner being husband is to maintain his wife and his minor son. Vide the impugned order petitioner was directed to pay ` 2500/- per month only and to pay ` 8000/- towards litigation expenses. With the payment of ` 2500/- it is very difficult for a lady and her minor son to survive. C.R. No. 7563 of 2011 -4- For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition without merits is dismissed. December 7 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE