Civil Revision No. 6131 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6131 of 2005 Date of decision: 06.08.2009 Same Ram ....Petitioner versus Jagriti ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2005, passed by the learned Matrimonial Court, on an application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. She honestly stated, that she was getting a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month as income, from the Red Cross Society, Rohtak, which was not sufficient, for her to maintain herself, specially to maintain the status to which she is entitled to being wife of the Civil Revision No. 6131 of 2005 -2- petitioner. She averred, that the petitioner was running a business in the name and style of Shiv Shakti Automobiles, Sonepat, from which his income was more than Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. In addition, it was alleged, that he was having 80 acres of agricultural land, from which his income was Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per month. Total income of the petitioner was said to be more than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month. Application was contested, wherein averments made by the respondent-wife were denied. The learned Matrimonial Court did not accept the assertions of the respondent-wife, that the petitioner-husband was running a business, as no proof in support thereof was produced. The learned Court held, that there was admission by the petitioner, that he owns six acres of land. The learned Court assessed his income to be Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) per annum, from six acres of land, and granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month, along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order primarily on the ground, that the learned Matrimonial Court has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner from agricultural land to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) per annum, whereas, in fact, income was not more than Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) per annum. In support of this contention reliance was placed on assessment of income, made by Kanungo “Annexure P-3”. The Civil Revision No. 6131 of 2005 -3- Annexure P-3 shows the annual income of the petitioner to be Rs.53,958.94 (Rupees fifty three thousand nine hundred fifty eight and ninety four paise only). This cannot be accepted to be true income of the petitioner, as it is assessment on the basis of price fixed by the Government for the crop. On proved facts, the income of the petitioner can be assessed to be about Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) per month. In order to maintain the similar status, the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month, as she is earning Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month herself. This revision petition is partly allowed, the maintenance pendente lite is reduced from Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month. The grant of litigation expenses is upheld. The respondent-wife would be entitled to additional litigation expenses, of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) in this revision petition. Revision partly allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 06, 2009 R.S.