IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.108 of 2008. Date of decision: 04.08.2008. Shri Balwinder Singh … …Petitioner Versus Smt.Subhash Kaur … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms.Radhika Gautam, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order of the learned Additional District Judge passed on an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendentelite. The learned Court, on a consideration of the facts before it, granted maintenance to the wife of Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is illegal and is not justified by the facts on the record of the case. This submission 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? cannot be accepted, at this stage. The grounds sought to be urged by the petitioner herein to say that the wife was at fault and is not entitled for the maintenance, are matters to be considered with the main petition after evidence is recorded. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. August 4, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.