C. R. No. 10 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 10 of 2006 Date of Decision : May 19, 2009 Dr. Reena Sahni .... Petitioner Vs. Sandeep Sahni .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Dr. Reena Sahni assailing order dated 10.09.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala thereby awarding maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner @ Rs.3,500/- per month w. e. f. 09.09.2004 i.e. the date of filing of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also granting her litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,500/-. The instant revision petition has been filed for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. According to the petitioner, she has no source of income, whereas the respondent-husband has Kothi No. 51 in Sector 13 and another C. R. No. 10 of 2006 2 Kothi in Sector 6 and a shop in Sector 9 – all at Karnal and also residential quarter in Rajeev Puram Colony at Karnal besides other properties and has rental income therefrom. He is also working as financier and also practising as Advocate having income of Rs.20,000/- per month. He is also income- tax assessee. Minor daughter of the parties is also residing with the petitioner. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations of the petitioner and denied that he was working as financier. He admitted that he was practising as Advocate, but denied his income to be Rs.20,000/- per month. He also alleged that the petitioner herself is a qualified doctor and could easily maintain herself as well as the minor daughter. The petitioner was also income-tax payer and after marriage, she was doing job in a hospital as doctor. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file, whereas no one has appeared for the respondent inspite of third and last opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is qualified as B.A.M.S. However, it is contended that the petitioner is not practising as doctor and has no income and she has to look after the minor daughter as well. This submission cannot be accepted in entirety. The petitioner is stated to be residing with her parents. She is qualified Ayurvedic doctor and therefore, has earning capacity, which cannot be ignored altogether. The respondent has not specifically denied that he is income- tax assessee. He has not produced his income-tax returns. He is practising as Advocate. He is also stated to be having rental income from properties. Keeping in view all these circumstances, there is scope for some enhancement of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of by C. R. No. 10 of 2006 3 enhancing the maintenance pendente lite to Rs.5,000/- per month w. e. f. 09.09.2004 i.e. the date of filing application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and litigation expenses are enhanced to Rs.11,000/-. May 19, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE