Civil Revision No.1262 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1262 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 23, 2011 Devender Soni .....Petitioner v. Smt.Jyoti .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 4.12.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narnaul, vide which learned trial Court has ordered for payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and her minor daughter during pendency of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner-husband. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a young Lawyer and Oath Commissioner and he is not earning sufficient income. Perusal of the impugned order shows that stand taken by the present petitioner-husband is that he is earning Rs.1500/- or Rs.1600/- per month. However, even if petitioner is a young Lawyer and Oath Commissioner, it cannot be said that he is earning only Rs.1500/- or Rs.1600/- per month. Respondent-wife is having no income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. She is entitled for the same standard of living as she used to have by living with her husband. Civil Revision No.1262 of 2011(O&M) -2- Hence, taking into consideration the status of the parties, it cannot be said that ad interim maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month as granted by learned trial Court for maintenance to the respondent-wife and her minor child is, in any way, excessive. Rather, it would be very difficult for respondent-wife to maintain herself and the minor child with this meager amount of Rs.3,000/- in these days of high prices. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 23.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge