Civil Revision No.4546 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4546 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:03.08.2010 Krishan Kumar .... petitioner Versus Suman Lata .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is husband's petition challenging the impugned order, whereby the trial Court has directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente lite along with Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the respondent-wife. In the divorce petition filed by the petitioner-husband, respondent-wife moved an application claiming pendente lite to the tune of Rs.11,500/- for herself and her son and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses stating that she had no source of income and was totally dependent upon others for her livelihood. It was further stated that the minor son aged 9 years who is a student is also to be maintained by her, whereas the petitioner-husband is a successful businessman and is earning Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. It was further alleged that petitioner was having eight acres of agricultural land in Rajasthan and one acre of land in District Sonipat. On the aforesaid averments, the respondent-wife claims Rs.7000/- Civil Revision No.4546 of 2010(O & M) 2 for herself and Rs.4500/- for her son as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses. The aforesaid application was contested submitting that petitioner was earning Rs.5000/- per month from tution. It was denied that the petitioner was owning two shops and it was further stated that he was having one small shop. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not denied the allegations regarding income and owning land and shop specifically and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case determined his income at not less than Rs.15,000/- per month and directed the petitioner to grant Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner and her son along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be held that the impugned order is not maintainable or that the maintenance pendente lite as determined is on the higher side. On 23rd July, 2010, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are chances of compromise as the petitioner wanted to rehabilitate the respondent-wife. However, to test the bona fides of the petitioner, he was directed to bring total amount of maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the respondent-wife on the adjourned date. On 26th July, 2010, counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court that arrears of amount of maintenance pendente lite along with litigation expenses shall be paid to the respondent-wife in the trial Court on 27.07.2010. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that only a part payment has been deposited before the trial Court towards the arrears of maintenance pendente. Thus, neither the entire arrears of the amount due has been paid nor the payment has been deposited in the Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner and Civil Revision No.4546 of 2010(O & M) 3 the facts of the case as mentioned in the foregoing paras, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 03.08.2010. neenu