C.R. No. 6096 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.R. No. 6096 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.9.2010 Rakesh Sharma ... Petitioner Versus Anuradha @ Sonia ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the petitioner Rakesh Sharma has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.4,500/- as litigation expenses to the respondent/wife- Anuradha in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12(1)(b)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed for the annulment of the marriage by decree of nullity of marriage. The said petition for annulment of the marriage has been filed by the petitioner himself on the ground that the respondent is suffering from incurable mental dis-order and is of unsound mind and that fact was concealed at the time of marriage. The respondent filed petition under Section 24 of the Act, in which the said maintenance and the litigation expenses were awarded to her. C.R. No. 6096 of 2010 (O&M) -2- It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional District Judge, did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is maintaining his aged parents, brother and sister also, while fixing the quantum of maintenance @Rs.3,000/- per month. According to him the monthly income of the petitioner is not more then Rs.6,000/- per month and in case he is left with only Rs.3000/-, he will not be in a position to maintain himself and his other family members. There is no denial of the fact that the Additional District Judge, did not discuss this point while fixing the quantum of maintenance, though the petitioner pleaded in his reply that he has got ailing parents, younger brother and sister, who are dependent upon him. Even if it be so, it cannot be said the maintenance so awarded to the respondent is on the higher side. The maintenance to be awarded to the wife must be such that she may live comfortably and not that she is left on the verge of starvation. The Court is to take into consideration a number of factors; such as, the income of the husband, his other responsibilities, the mode of life to which wife was accustomed at the time she was living with him and how many members of the family are dependent upon him. The petitioner came up with the plea that he is plying auto- rickshaw on hire bases and is not earning more than Rs.2500/- per month. However, it was found by the Additional District Judge that he and his brother owned one vehicle make Tata ACE bearing registration No. PB- 9807. By taking into consideration the ownership of that vehicle the maintenance was awarded at the said rate. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that these days a person plying auto-rickshaws earns handsome C.R. No. 6096 of 2010 (O&M) -3- amount. In the present case, it is very much apparent that the petitioner has income from two sources; by plying auto-rickshaw and from vehicle make Tata ACE. It is very difficult for anyone in these days of high price to maintain himself or herself with a meager amount of Rs.3000/- per month, which comes to Rs.100/- per day. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Additional District Judge. The petition is dismissed accordingly. September 21, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge