IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6010 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011. Baljinder Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Satinderjit Kaur. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, 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 27.08.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, Annexure P3 on an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), Annexure P1 during proceedings under Section 13 of the Act initiated by present petitioner-husband against respondent-wife for divorce, granting `4,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife CR No.6010 of 2010 and `3,500/- per month to minor son from the date of filing of the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only a labourer in Italy and hence, he is having no regular income whereas respondent-wife is working as a teacher. Hence, it is contended that ad-interim maintenance fixed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur is on higher side. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-wife that reply filed by present petitioner-husband to the application of respondent-wife filed under Section 24 of the Act is an evasive one. It is further contended that petitioner has admitted that he is working in an agricultural farm in Italy and however, he has not disclosed his income. It has also been contended that respondent-wife is not working as a teacher in school and she is not having any income. It has also been contended that petitioner-husband has also not filed any affidavit to rebut the contention of respondent-wife. It is further argued that, moreover, child is also about 8 years of age and school going and that hence ad-interim maintenance cannot be said to be on higher side. It is further contended that respondent-wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she would have while residing with her husband. It is also stated that nothing has been paid by petitioner- husband to respondent wife till today as per order dated 27.08.2010 and that petition is pending since 2007. 2 CR No.6010 of 2010 Learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur while passing impugned order observed as under:- “7. The relationship between the parties is an admitted fact. Moreover, the allegations and counter allegations are not required to be seen at the time of disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Act as the same are required to be substantiated by the concerned parties at the relevant stage. At the time of disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Act the social as well as financial status is required to be considered. The applicant/wife in Para No.3 of the application has given the income earned by the respondent/husband to be Rs.1 lac per month as he is working in a farm house at Italy. In the corresponding para of the reply filed by the respondent/husband through his attorney shows that the said earning have not been specifically denied by him and the only submission made in the reply is to be effect that he is working as labourer at Italy but the fact remains that the income as stated by the applicant/wife being earned by the respondent/husband has not been specifically denied. Moreover, the reply is not supported by any sworn affidavit. During the course of arguments, a reference was made by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that earlier the relations between husband and wife were cordial and during those happier times, respondent/husband used to send sufficient amount for maintenance of applicant/wife. While contending so, he has referred to some receipts showing the amount paid to applicant/wife invariably to the tune of Rs.10 to 11 thousand on several occasions. Keeping in view the above referred receipts it can be easily made out that the respondent/husband is earning handsomely on the foreign land and is able to pay the maintenance to his legally wedded wife as well as his minor child. As far as the employment of the applicant is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is at present 3 CR No.6010 of 2010 employed anywhere. Merely having higher standard of education would not ipso facto mean that the applicant is earning handsomely in order to maintain herself. It is the moral and legal duty of the respondent/husband to maintain his legally wedded wife Satinderjit Kaur. So, at this stage, there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant Satinderjit Kaur is possessed of any independent source of income or has got any movable or immovable property in her name to earn her livelihood. The husband is morally as well as legally duty bound to maintain his legally wedded wife and considering the fact that in the present days the prices of each and every commodity of daily needs are touching the sky, this court is of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things to direct him to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.4500/- per month to the applicant Satinderjit Kaur and Rs.3500/- per month to her minor child since the date of filing of application. Besides it, Baljinder Singh respondent is also directed to pay lump sum litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” A perusal of aforementioned order shows that sufficient reasons have been given by learned District Judge while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, petitioner-husband is working in Italy. He has given evasive reply. He has not disclosed his income. There is no evidence that respondent-wife is having any income. She has to maintain herself and minor child. She is facing litigation initiated by petitioner-husband for the last three years and nothing has been paid as maintenance to her till today. She is entitled for the same standard of living as that of her husband. The child is also entitled for good education. Petitioner-husband is working in Italy and hence, he must be earning handsome income. However, he has not disclosed 4 CR No.6010 of 2010 his income. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that in these days of high prices, the ad-interim maintenance as fixed by learned trial Court is in any way excessive. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 5