Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 15.9.2010 Salochana Devi ... Petitioner Versus Harikesh ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rishi Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. The petitioner – Salochna Devi, has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which she was allowed the maintenance to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2500/-, in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed in the petition under Section 13 of that Act. She has prayed for the enhancement of that maintenance. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent owned 10 Marlas of agricultural land and is also cultivating 19 Kanals of land, which belongs to his father and as such his income is to be taken as more than Rs.10,000/- per month. He also submitted that even if it is assumed that he is working as laborer even then as per notification issued by State of Haryana the minimum daily wages of unskilled worker have Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2010 (O&M) -2- been fixed at Rs.167.23. Thus income of respondent comes to Rs.4348/- per month and the maintenance allowance @ Rs.1200/- per month is on the lower side. The contention of the petitioner, made in the application under Section 24 of the Act, that the respondent is cultivating 19 kanals was denied by him in his reply. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her contentions that respondent was cultivating that land also. The trial Court by making guess assessed the income of the respondent at Rs.3300/- per month, by keeping in view that his income is to be taken as that of daily wager. That finding may be said to be incorrect, in view of the latest notification issued by State of Haryana and which has been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if it is so, even then, it cannot be said that the maintenance awarded to the petitioner is on the lower side. It is almost one forth the income of the respondent. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and cannot be interfered with in this petition while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. September 15, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge