C. R. No. 901 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 901 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 11, 2010 Jagdish Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Paramjit Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jagdish Kumar has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, thereby disposing of application moved by respondent Paramjit Kaur under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short – the Act) granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent herein @ Rs.1,500/- per month for herself and Rs.600/- per month for one minor son residing with her and also awarding her Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses. Respondent herein has filed divorce petition against the petitioner herein under Section 13 of the Act. It is undisputed that petitioner is husband of the respondent, and two sons were born out of the wedlock. One son is residing with the petitioner and the other son with the respondent. The respondent alleged in her application (Annexure P-2) C. R. No. 901 of 2010 2 under Section 24 of the Act that she has no source of income, whereas the petitioner herein is earning Rs.10,000/- per month by plying taxi cab and by selling milk. The husband, in his reply (Annexure P-3), controverted the averments of the wife. The husband denied that he was earning Rs.10,000/- by plying taxi. The husband rather pleaded that he has no income. His mother is also residing with him besides one son and he is maintaining her also. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, by plying taxi, is earning about Rs.3,000/- per month only and therefore, the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial Judge is excessive. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner husband in his reply (Annexure P-3) did not even plead that he is earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He rather pleaded that he has meager income. However, it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and the other minor son residing with the wife. Even unskilled casual labourer earns about Rs.3,500/- per month these days. The petitioner is admittedly plying taxi. Consequently, his income must be considerably more than that of a casual labourer. The trial Judge was, therefore, justified in assessing the income of the petitioner husband to be about Rs.5,000/- per month. In view thereof, the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted to the respondent for herself and for minor son residing with her cannot be said to excessive, particularly in these days of sky-rocketing prices of daily needs. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 11, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE