C.R. No.4904 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4904 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.08.2010 Manish Kumar .……Petitioner Versus Ritika Sharma ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Harkeerat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Manish Kumar has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.05.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar thereby directing the petitioner- husband to pay to the respondent-wife Ritika Sharma Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses, on application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for this purpose. Petitioner has filed petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage between the parties. The respondent moved application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that she has no source of income whereas the husband is serving in Italy and earns Rs.1,20,000/- per month. He also has big businesses in Chandigarh under the names of two concerns. He is also having a house in Sunny Enclave, Kharar which has been rented out. C.R. No.4904 of 2010 -2- The petitioner-husband denied that he was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per month in Italy. He alleged that he has since left Italy permanently and is now residing at Chandigarh and is not doing anything. On the other hand, wife is earning Rs.15000/- per month being employed in school. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner remained in Italy for about 4 years and had to come back because he did not get suitable work there. It was also contended that he is living in Chandigarh with his parents in house which has been taken on rent by his parents from his (petitioner's) brother. It was also contended that the petitioner is dependent on his parents for his own livelihood and is not earning anything. It was also contended that the house in Sunny Enclave, Kharar belongs to the petitioner's sister. However, all these contentions cannot be accepted because no such plea was taken before the trial Court except that the petitioner-husband is not doing anything. However, admittedly the petitioner is residing at Chandigarh. If the petitioner can maintain himself at Chandigarh, he can easily pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance pendente lite. The said amount is a petty amount, keeping in view the sky rocketing prices of daily necessities of life these days. The petitioner also might have brought good amount from Italy, having stayed therefor about 4 years. The petitioner was also running two businesses at Chandigarh which, the petitioner's counsel contends, are now defunct, but without any pleading or material to substantiate the same. C.R. No.4904 of 2010 -3- Keeping in view the lifestyle and standard of the petitioner and his antecedents having admittedly stayed in Italy for about 4 years, the amount of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.08.2010 A. Kaundal