IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3186 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.11.2009 Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner versus Sushma .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month w.e.f. 20.10.2007 to the respondent-wife towards interim maintenance. While granting the above-stated interim maintenance, the learned trial Court has kept in view the fact that the petitioner-husband is an able bodied person who is a co-owner in the ancestral agricultural land measuring 28 acres. C.R. No.3186 of 2009 (O&M) 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and the unsuccessful efforts for amicable settlement of the matter through the aegis of the Mediation Centre have also been made. On the previous date of hearing, one of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner-husband was that the respondent-wife is serving in a private school and is drawing Rs.7000/- per month salary. Consequently, the case was adjourned to produce any cogent material to substantiate his plea. Meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.75000/- to the respondent-wife towards part payment of the arrears of maintenance granted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband states that the petitioner-husband could not lay his hands to any document/material to prove that the respondent-wife is working in a private school. The petitioner has also failed to pay the part of the arrears of maintenance as directed by this Court vide order dated 9.11.2009. Having regard to the rise in the Price Wholesale Index and the fact that the respondent-wife is required to sustain herself in a city like Chandigarh, where the cost of living is proportionally higher as compared to other urban areas, granting of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance by the trial Court to the respondent-wife is not on the higher side. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 23-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE