IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6988 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th November, 2009. Harsharan Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Jatinder J.C.Nagpal, Advocate Versus Avtar Singh Respondent through Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 in a divorce petition filed by the respondent – husband under Section 13, whereby a paltry sum of Rs.2000/- has been granted to the petitioner – wife and her minor girl towards interim maintenance. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard. An effort for reconciliation has also been made but on account of the stub-born attitude of the respondent – husband, the same has not materialized even though the petitioner – wife is ready and willing to join his company unconditionally for better future of her minor girl. Be that as it may, counsel for the parties have been heard on merits. It has come on record that the respondent – husband is owner in possession of two acres of land and is also running a PCO. Besides this, it is the specific stand of the petitioner – wife that the respondent is also running a Mixture Plant which is not seriously disputed by the respondent. On this premise, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent is earning at least Rs. One Lac per month. It is the conceded position that the petitioner – wife is unemployed. There is a female child, aged about three years, born out of the wedlock. Having regard to the tender age of the child, the petitioner can not otherwise join any vocation/employment as there would be none to look after the minor girl. The respondent, on the other hand, has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner and their minor child. In this era of high-prices, it will be too far from the truth to expect the petitioner – wife to sustain herself and the minor child with a paltry sum of Rs.2000/- per month. Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent states that another sum of Rs.2000/- has been granted to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, Patiala in separate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., however, he is not sure of the payment of arrears of maintenance granted in that case. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the need of the petitioner – wife, keeping in view the growing age of the child, is bound to increase, I am of the considered view that at least a sum of Rs.6500/- per month needs to be granted to the petitioner to maintain herself and the minor child. Ordered accordingly. Since the petitioner has already been granted maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 is modified and the petitioner – wife is held entitled to Rs.4500/- per month as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act which shall include the sustenance allowance for the minor child as well. In other words, the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.6500/- per month in lump-sum from the date of application under Section 24 of the Act. It is made clear that the respondent - husband shall be liable to pay the entire arrears of maintenance including granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within one month, failing which there shall remain a charge on the agricultural land owned him. He is also remain restrained from alienating or creating any kind of encumbrance over the said land. The petitioner – wife is also held entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3300/- for these proceedings. Disposed of. Dasti. November 13, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE