C.R. No.8430 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8430 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2010 Harjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur @ Sukhwinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.09.2010 by which application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short “the Act”] for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses has been allowed. Admittedly, earlier vide order dated 27.05.2008, maintenance pendente lite was fixed @ `1,500/- per month by the learned Court below, which was challenged by the respondent for enhancement by way of Civil Revision No.283 of 2009 in this Court. The Civil Revision No.283 of 2009 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2009 for re-considering the matter, pursuant to which the respondent had filed the present application for re-fixation of the amount of maintenance pendente lite. The learned Court below, while keeping in view the income of the petitioner, has fixed a sum of `2,000/- towards maintenance pendente lite and `2,200/- towards litigation expenses which has been ordered to be adjusted as it had already been paid. Aggrieved against that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the husband/petitioner in which, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a retired person having monthly pension of `13,109/- and has to look after his daughter and his sister who are dependent upon him. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a diabetic person and also suffering from other ailments. It is submitted that the respondent has a shop in her name from which she is getting C.R. No.8430 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** `7,000/- per month as rent and is also educated. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to give the details of the shop from which the respondent is allegedly getting the rent. In any case, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, a sum of `2,000/- out of `13,109/- towards maintenance is not on the higher side which can call for interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. December 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE