Civil Revision No. 839 of 2009 -1 **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 839 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.04.2009. Manpreet Singh Petitioner Versus Mandeep Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. J.K.Gurna, Advocate for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court, while allowing a plea under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in favour of the respondent-wife and against the petitioner- husband, directing the latter to pay maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month, along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-. A copy of the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Act before the learned Trial Court has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The application consists of 9 paras. In para 1, the respondent-wife mentioned the pendency of the petition under Section 13 of the Act before that Court. Para 2 contains an averment that there is subsistence of marriage between Civil Revision No. 839 of 2009 -2 **** the parties and the husband is legally duty bound to maintain his wife. In para 3, the wife made an averment that she was turned out of the matrimonial house on 10.2.2008 after she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty over there and that she is residing at her natal house since then. Para 4 contains an averment that she is a house wife and has no means of sustenance for self and also to meet the litigation expenses. Likewise, para 5 contains an averment that she own no movable and immovable property and that the husband has refused to maintain her. Para no.6 contains an averment that she has no independent means of sustenance for self and also to meet the litigation expenses. Para no.7 further indicates that she has to bring along certain relations to attend every date of hearing. Para 8 contains an averment to the effect that respondent is an able bodied person, that he has sufficient income from his business of sale and purchase of trucks and another vehicles, that he is an NRI from Italy, that he has landed property in village Sampla and that he has income from dairy framing business as well and that he is earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. Para 9 contains an averment to the effect that the wife requires Rs.20,000/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. As against it, the counter filed by the husband contained only two paras. All that he averred, in the course of para ,1 was that application is against the facts and law. In other para i.e. para 2 the petitioner-husband avers that he has no source of income, that he does not run the business of sale and purchase of trucks and other Civil Revision No. 839 of 2009 -3 **** vehicles, that he has no landed property or that he is not running any dairy farming business and that he did visit Italy but could land a job only as a daily wager and he ultimately returned to India on 5.12.2006. Apart therefrom, he also stated that he has to maintain her old aged mother who is suffering from cancer. The learned Trial Court awarded maintenance pendente- lite at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court proceeded to assess the monthly income of the petitioner as daily wager. There is no averment that he is not an able bodied person. The date on which the petitioner-husband had gone to Italy is not indicated. It is only the date of return to India which has been given in the counter. In the face of a precise averment by the wife that he is an NRI from Italy, it was incumbent upon the petitioner- husband to indicate the exact duration for which he stayed at Italy. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband argues that the respondent-wife has better academic credentials and holds a computer diploma as well and she earns a lot of money by coaching students in that subject. The averment made on behalf of the petitioner is in a vacuum in view of the fact that no place where the coaching is given had been indicated. Such like vague allegation can always be made. For the moment, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner is an able bodied husband. There is no material on the file to prove that the respondent-wife has any means of sustenance for self and Civil Revision No. 839 of 2009 -4 **** also to meet the litigation expenses. The amount fixed by the learned Trial Court cannot, at all, be said to be harsh in character. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge