C. R. No. 4860 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4860 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 04, 2010 Gurwinder Pal Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Harwinder Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Gurwinder Pal Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 04.05.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar, thereby disposing of application moved by respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short – the Act). The petitioner is husband of respondent. They have two minor sons aged 14 years and 10 years studying in 8th and 6th standard. Relations between the parties have soured. Petitioner has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent. C. R. No. 4860 of 2010 2 Respondent moved application Annexure P-1 under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite for the two minor sons alleging that the petitioner-husband is employed as Head Constable and his salary is approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. He also has income of not less than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from agricultural land. Respondent wife is also employed in Police department. Educational expenses of the children are said to be Rs.6,000/- per month. In addition, they need food, clothing and other necessities of life. The wife accordingly claimed Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the two children. Petitioner husband filed reply Annexure P-2, wherein he denied his income as pleaded by the wife. The husband also alleged that the wife is also employed in Police getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Averments regarding expenses of the children were also denied. Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-3, has directed the petitioner husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance pendente lite for both the children from the date of filing of application Annexure P-1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the parties are employed as Head Constables in Punjab Police and salary of the C. R. No. 4860 of 2010 3 petitioner is Rs.15,000/- per month. The contention is patently false and untenable. In reply Annexure P-2, the petitioner himself alleged that salary of the wife is Rs.25,000/- per month. It is not explained as to how the salary of the petitioner husband is Rs.15,000/- per month only when salary of respondent wife is Rs.25,000/- per month and both of them are employed as Head Constables. It may be added that the petitioner husband in his reply Annexure P-2 intentionally did not mention his income or salary. Even in the instant revision petition, the petitioner has tried to play smart with the Court by pleading that his basic salary is Rs.15,000/- per month. Even in the revision petition, the petitioner has concealed his gross salary or carry home salary. Keeping in view the income of the parties and the fact that education is very costly these days and prices of daily necessities of life are sky rocketing, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for education and maintenance of two children in their teens cannot be said to be excessive by any standards so as to warrant interference or reduction at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. C. R. No. 4860 of 2010 4 August 04, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE