Civil Revision No. 346 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 346 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.4.2011 *** Meenakshi. .. Petitioner Vs. Vijay Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-wife is aggrieved with the order dated 17.10.2008 by dint of which an amount of Rs.5000/- per month has been fixed as maintenance pendente lite, besides Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses have been awarded to her. She is seeking modification of the aforesaid order to the extent that she be awarded to Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Heard. The stand of the petitioner is that she is not having any source of income and she is also looking after her two children, who are residing with her, while her husband is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month and considering the financial status of the husband, the amount of monthly maintenance as well as litigation expenses be increased. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the period 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 showing her annual income as Rs. 57,200/-, 76300/-, 88,300/- and 1,08,500/- respectively. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same in fact were filled in by the respondent, in the name of petitioner-wife, so as to avoid the payment of tax while the Civil Revision No. 346 of 2009 2 annual income shown in the aforesaid returns are part and parcel of the income of the husband. The husband has not denied his earning as about Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife is admittedly taking care of two minor children, while the respondent is claiming that he has to take care of his old age mother. The income tax returns filed by him have been shown during the course of arguments. Under the assessment year 2006-07 annual income to the tune of Rs.1,25,164/- has been shown while the returns for the period 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010 shows the annual income of the respondent little above Rs.1 lac. Even for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the wife is having no source of income, but taking into account the proof produced on record regarding the income of the respondent-husband, it cannot be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, as fixed by the Court below is on lower side. Even the petitioner has got a good amount of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses and hence no interference is warranted qua it also. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 26, 2011 Jiten