CR No. 2944 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 2944 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision March 10, 2009 Surinder Kaur ....... Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Arora, Advocate for the respondent. **** K. Kannan, J(Oral). 1. The revision petition is filed at the instance of the wife against an order determining the interim maintenance at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the husband is a Junior Engineer working as Sub Divisional Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and is earning more than Rs.20,000/-. 2. The Court below while awarding an interim maintenance, has taken note of the fact that the salary and all benefits are Rs.16,949/- and after deduction to the tune of Rs.12,892/-, the net salary which was available would support a finding of grant of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance for the wife and children and for litigation expenses at Rs.4,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that he had benefited his wife by purchase of a property in her name and that he had to borrow loans for putting up a construction and even that building had been sold by her. It was further his contention that a suit was pending CR No. 2944 of 2008(O&M) 2 between the parties in respect of the property alleged to have been purchased by him in her name. These are all disputed questions which the wife stroutly denies but the fact remains that the loans which have been referred to in the written statement (Annexure P-2) are not as such as to show that there is any unreasonableness or that they have been taken only to reduce the take home salary to defeat the claim of wife for maintenance. The order of the Court below determining the maintenance including the litigation expenses accords with evidence that was placed before him and there is no scope for interference in revision. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had been promoted in the meanwhile and he is drawing a higher salary. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the Court for any change of circumstance as a ground for enhancement of maintenance and that will be adjudicated on its own merits after hearing objections from the husband. 4. The Civil revision petition is dismissed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 10, 2009 archana