IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 3325-CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1047 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Gurcharan Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus Kulwinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs.RP Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Joginder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM No. 3325 -CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record copy of written statement alongwith Annexure R-1. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CR No. 1047 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifying order dated 4.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana on application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity 'the Act') filed by petitioner No.1 in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act for divorce filed by respondent-husband against her vide which trial court has granted maintenance pendente lite at the rate of `3500/- per month i.e. ` 2000/- to petitioner No.1 (wife) and ` 1500 for petitioner No.2 (minor child). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. CM No. 3325-CII of 2011 in/and CR No. 1047 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent is not disputed, as wife and husband, whereas petitioner No.2 was born from their wedlock. It has been averred by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are having no source of income. Admittedly, respondent-husband is employed as Constable in Punjab Police. Even as per salary certificate placed on record on behalf of respondent-husband, his total salary is more than ` 20,000/- per month and carry home salary is ` 13,000/- per month after deducting various savings. It has rightly been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in these days of high prices, it would be very difficult for petitioner No.1 to maintain herself and her minor child (petitioner No.2) with this meager amount of ` 3500/- per month. Petitioner No.2 is studying in Class-IV in a public school. The petitioner-wife is entitled to same standard of living as that of her husband. Hence, in my view, ad interim maintenance i.e. ` 3500/- as awarded by learned trial court is not adequate. The impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent-husband is directed to pay `5000/- per month as ad interim maintenance to the petitioners from the date of filing of application during pendency of the main petition. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. February 7, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE