CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1917 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12, 2011 Sukhchain Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Prabhjot Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Navjinder S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. P. Singh Luna, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the grant of interim maintenance at the rate of `2000/- per month, petitioner- husband has filed the present revision petition to challenge the said order. The main plea raised by the petitioner before the matrimonial Court was that the petitioner was not having steady income as he was working as a Granthi and his CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1917 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: monthly income varied according to the duty assigned. The Judicial Magistrate, dealing with the application for grant of interim maintenance, has rightly observed that the petitioner is working as a Granthi and being an able bodied person, can not wriggle out of his responsibility to maintain his wife. As per the wife, the monthly income of the petitioner was `30,000/- and she had accordingly asked for maintenance of `10,000/- per month. This income ofcourse was denied by the petitioner. The Court, however, has observed that even if the income of the petitioner is taken as daily wager, he would earn a sum of `4,500/-. It is also rightly observed that his income would be more depending upon number of Paths performed. Accordingly, a sum of `2,000/- per month was sanctioned as interim maintenance, as this was the sum, which was just enough to meet the basic necessities of life. I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order, granting interim maintenance. The ground raised that respondent-wife is also having an income is not sufficiently established and ultimately is to be seen at the time of allowing the maintenance as prayed for. No case for interference, thus is made out. Dismissed. October 12 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE