Civil Revision No.117 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.117 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 7, 2011 Sunil Sharma .....Petitioner v. Harsh Sharma .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.464-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.117 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifying the impugned order dated 20.11.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, Annexure P1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, on an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite in the main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide which respondent and the minor child were held entitled to Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite besides Rs.5,100/- for litigation expenses. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that his carry-home salary is only Rs.6517/- and that he is to look after his old parents and also to pay rent of the house @ Rs.1400/- per month. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that no such plea that he is to look after his old parents and also to pay rent of the house @ Rs.1400/- per month was taken by the petitioner before learned trial Court. In these days of high prices it will be very difficult for respondent- Civil Revision No.117 of 2011 (O&M) -2- wife and the minor child to meet the basic necessities of life with meager sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. Divorce petition has been filed by the present petitioner-husband. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, while passing the impugned order directing petitioner to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for maintenance of wife and the minor child. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any amount paid as maintenance during proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any petition filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for the period claimed in this petition shall be adjusted. 7.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge