Crl.R.No.3154 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.3154 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2010 Sanjay Gulati .....Petitioner v. Smt.Harshlata .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 27.8.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, vide which present revision- petitioner was directed to pay ad interim maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month to respondent-wife from the date of filing of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order dated 27.8.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar. Admitted facts are that the present revision petitioner is getting total salary of Rs.15,752/- per month and that his carry home salary is about Rs.12,000/- per month. Factum of marriage is not disputed. There is also no dispute that respondent-wife is living separate from the petitioner. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, has granted only Rs.2,500/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent-wife, which cannot be said to be on higher side in these days of high prices. However, it has been strongly argued on behalf of the revision petitioner that salary of the revision petitioner at the time of filing of this petition was much less. Though nothing has come on the record as to what was the salary of present revision petitioner at the time of filing of the present petition, however, even if it is taken that salary of present petitioner Crl.R.No.3154 of 2010 (O&M) -2- on the date of filing of the present petition was less, interim maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- per month in these days of high prices cannot be said to be on higher side. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 29.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge