C.R.No.4207 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4207 of 2009 Date of Decision : 29.7.2009 Rajiv Makkar ...Petitioner Versus Jyoti Makkar ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Faridabad on 9.6.2009, awarding Rs.2500/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the minor female child as maintenance pendent lite. The petitioner herein has sought dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, solemnized on 28.2.2003. As per the documents on record, the petitioner has earlier filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the said proceedings the learned trial Court has awarded Rs.1300/- as maintenance pendente lite for the wife and minor child. As per the petitioner, the said proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were withdrawn as the matter was settled between the parties. Subsequently, the respondent-wife has sought maintenance for herself and for her minor child in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The learned trial Court has awarded Rs.800/- per month to each of the C.R.No.4207 of 2009 2 respondents as interim maintenance, vide order dated 28.5.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in which the respondent has moved an application for grant of interim maintenance, which has been disposed of, as mentioned above. From the perusal of the previous proceedings, it is evident that the respondents were awarded maintenance of Rs.1300/- per month in the year 2004. With the passage of time and due to increase in prices, the grant of total maintenance of Rs.4000/- cannot be said to be excessive though it is the stand of the petitioner that he is earning Rs.3500/- per month only. The stand of the petitioner has not been believed by the learned trial Court and I find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court. The only aspect which is required to be taken into consideration is that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court shall be adjusted by the maintenance granted to the respondents in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 29.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE