Civil Revision No. 7265 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7265 of 2009 Date of decision : 26.2.2010 Roshan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Anamika Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. In the course of the proceedings for dissolution of the marriage initiated by the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife filed a plea under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the award of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses. The averment, in the course of the application, was that she has no means of sustenance and that the petitioner-husband, who is an expert photographer, is running a Video Tech. Mixing Centre at Kapurthala wherein he is carrying on the business of Genie Plus Mixing, VHS to VCD Digital Titling, Special Editing and earns a sum of more than Rs. 40,000/- per month which gets enhance to Rs. 1 lac per month during marriage and other festival seasons. The petitioner-husband averred, in response, that he at times earns a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month which goes down to Rs.5000-5000 in time of paucity of business. Civil Revision No. 7265 of 2009 -2- *** Learned Trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent-wife and further awarded litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- in her favour. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- husband states that the petitioner-husband has a meager income as shop is situated at Kapurthala wherein there are no flourishing business facilities. It is also argued that petitioner-husband has also to look after his aged mother. Kapurthala is a district headquarters and a fairly upcoming town. The town is the successor of an erstwhile princely State. The petitioner-husband does not claim to be an income tax assessee. At the same time, he must have been issuing receipts to various customers. It was for him to have produced receipts for certain period before the Trial Court in order to buttress the plea raised by him about the quantification of monthly income. He could very well do so in relation with the non marriage and non-festive season and the Court a marriage and festive seasons as well. That could have given the learned Trial fair idea of what income the petitioner-husband must be earning at different times of the year. In this age of sky rocketing prices, the amount awarded in favour of the respondent-wife cannot be said to be an higher or harsher side. That amount would just be reasonably sufficient to enable the respondent-wife to sustain herself. The petition is held to be without any force and is ordered to be dismissed. February 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE