IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1454 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 9, 2011. Monika. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Harsh Kumar. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 29.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide which learned Court ordered respondent-husband to pay `1,000/- per month as maintenance for both the minor children on application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the ‘Act’) in main petition filed under Section 13 of the Act by present petitioner against respondent. CR No.1454 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent- husband that petitioner has turned out one child i.e. daughter, namely, Rupali who is now residing with respondent-husband and that she has also come present in the Court alongwith her father today. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only Junior Artist in PGIMS, Rohtak whereas respondent- husband is Doctor by profession and is running a private clinic and hence, it is contended that the maintenance @ `1,000/- per month for the minor child is inadequate. It has been contended by learned counsel for respondent- husband that he has to now keep and maintain elder child and bear her educational expenses. It has also been stated that he is already bearing educational expenses of other child, who is studying in Class IV standard in model school, Rohtak and that he is ready to bear educational expenses of the second child in future as well. Hence, in view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-husband, no further interference in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is called for. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 9, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 2