C.R. No. 6568 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 6568 of 2008 Date of decision: July 26,2010 Paramjit Kaur ..Petitioner. Versus Gurmeet Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J C.M.No.18299-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Order dated 14.5.2008 passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. granting maintenance in favour of Master Mayank and against respondent-Gurmeet Singh is taken on the record as Annexure P-6. C.R. No. 6568 of 2008 No one appears on behalf of respondent despite service from the last many dates. Hence the court has been left with no option but to hear the case on merits. This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-wife challenging the impugned order dated 8.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the petitioner-wife was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of application i.e., 7.6.2008 as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent- husband in a petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (for brevity the 'Act') filed by the petitioner. C.R. No. 6568 of 2008 2 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid petition for judicial separation has already been ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.4.2010. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that while granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-husband, the trial Court has ignored the various documents on record and has not applied its judicial mind in the right perspective. It has been argued that the respondent-husband is an able bodied person and he is presumed to be possessed of means to support even his wife and children. Learned counsel has further argued that in separate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-6), initiated at the behest of minor child Master Mayank (son of petitioner). The court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has held that the respondent is presumed to be possessed of means to support his wife and child and has assessed his monthly income not less than Rs. 4500/- P.M. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment reported as Smt. Kanchan w/o Kamelendra Sawarkar Versus Kamalendra alias Kamalakar s/o Rajaram Sawarkar 1992 Bombay 493 to contend that in an application for maintenance pendente lite, maintenance cannot be granted if the husband is an able bodied person as there cannot be any handicap for him to earn his livlihood. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the judgment cited at the bar. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent-husband is not an able bodied person. Nor he is suffering from any handicap which can be an impediment to earn bare minimum for himself. It has also come on record that the minor son is living with the petitioner-mother. The factum of passing of order dated 14.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed against the respondent under Section 125 Cr. P.C. directing him to grant Rs. 1500/- P.M. to the minor son as maintenance is also not disputed on the record. C.R. No. 6568 of 2008 3 Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and relying upon the judgment in Smt. Kanchan's case (supra), I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 8.10.2008. No costs. July 26,2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE