Civil Revision No. 2270 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2270 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 *** Ajit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Kawaljit Kaur .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.L. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-husband is aggrieved with the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib by virtue of which the respondent-wife has been awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the decision of the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. A sum of Rs.3000/- has also been awarded as litigation expenses to the wife. Heard. The relationship inter-se the parties is not in dispute, so as their separation. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of interim maintenance is on higher side especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has to look after his aged parents and also he is paying Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent-wife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel all these facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. It is evident from the records that the admitted pay of the petitioner is Rs.19099/- and the carry home salary is Rs.17069/-. The Civil Revision No. 2270 of 2010 2 perusal of the impugned order reveals that the factum of grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was well within the knowledge of the Court below at the time when it passed the impugned order. The total amount of maintenance which the wife is taking in both the petitions comes to Rs.6500/-, which more or less comes to 1/3rd of the pay of the petitioner. There is a social and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of interim maintenance fixed by the Court below is on excessive side. That apart, the petitioner cannot be absolve of his social obligation under the guise of maintenance of his old parents. The respondent wife is entitled to live the same life in terms of social and financial status in which she would have enjoyed if she continued to live with her husband. In view of the discussion above, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Jiten