C.R.No.1820 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.1820 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 16, 2011 Nikhlesh .......Petitioner Versus Smt.Vandana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.JP Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> RAM CHAND GUPTA,J. (Oral) CM No.7194-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1820 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite in the petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the respondent-wife during the pendency of the petition under Section 13 of the Act instituted by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. C.R.No.1820 of 2011 2 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a new entrant in legal profession and is not doing any business and his father is getting only Rs.2,500/- per month as pension and his mother has also no source of income. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to settle his dispute. Learned counsel has also referred to order dated 23.2.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1262 of 2011. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that admittedly, father of the petitioner retired as District Manager, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation which is a State owned corporation and mother of the petitioner contested an election of MLA. Plea has been taken by the respondent-wife that the petitioner is also doing the business of property dealing and having an income of more than Rs.70,000/- per month. However, she could not produce any documentary evidence in this regard. However, it was for the petitioner-husband to disclose his income. It seems that the petitioner-husband is concealing his income. Plea of petitioner that he is having no income being new entrant in the legal profession cannot be accepted. Marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2006 and the respondent was turned out of her matrimonial house in the year 2008 after treating her with cruelty. The petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner-husband on 25.11.2009. The respondent-wife is having no income to maintain herself. It is the duty of the petitioner-husband to keep and maintain her. She is entitled to lead the same quality of life as she would have been leading if she would have been residing with her husband. Taking into consideration the status of the family of the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per C.R.No.1820 of 2011 3 month as maintenance pendente lite by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 16, 2011 JUDGE SRM