IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2306 of 2011 ` Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Rahul Seth … Petitioner versus Yatra Seth … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the husband. He is aggrieved with order dated 18.1.2011 by virtue of which maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month has been fixed from the date of application which was filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent- wife for grant of maintenance pendente-lite. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner-husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage as null and void wherein interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month was awarded to the respondent-wife, vide order dated 27.10.2010. Respondent-wife also filed petition under Section 9 of the Act ibid in which the present impugned order has been passed. Heard. Case file shows that the present impugned order has been passed fixing the said maintenance amount mainly on the ground that the petitioner-husband is working in UK and earning 2274/24 pounds equivalent to Rs.1,50,000/- per month in India. However, Annexure P-4, copy of the passport, indicates that the petitioner-husband after coming back to India on 21.8.2008 never returned to UK and even his marriage with respondent on 19.2.2009 is subsequent to his arrival in India. He has not C.R. No. 2306 of 2011 -2- been allowed to go to UK on account of the said cases. Therefore, there is no question of his earning of the said income in UK as reflected in the impugned order. A sum of Rs.4000/- towards maintenance pendente-lite has been fixed in petition under Section 12 of the Act ibid and Rs.4000/- in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., apart from the maintenance fixed in the impugned order. There is no discussion with regard to adjustments of the maintenance fixed in the different proceedings. It seems that the Court below has not applied its mind before passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court concerned to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 29, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE