C.R. No. 3786 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3786 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 2, 2011 Harinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Gurpreet Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, an application under Order 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife has been allowed granting an interim maintenance of ` 2000/- per month alongwith litigation expenses of ` 2000/-. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the trial Court has not fairly appreciated the facts of the present case and that it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioner had not filed any reply C.R. No. 3786 of 2011 (O&M) [2] whereas the reply had been filed on February 21, 2011. He has argued that the order had been passed by presuming the salary of petitioner as ` 42000/- per month whereas he is earning a sum of ` 14000/- per month besides maintaining his own clinic for which he has to spend. Counsel has argued that the petitioner is not liable to pay anything for the minor child who was born out of the first marriage of the respondent. Counsel submits that the wife has admitted that she is a Doctor and earning a sum of ` 6000/- per month but she is earning much more than the amount mentioned. I have considered all the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the amount has been awarded for the maintenance of minor child is misconceived as the amount has been ordered only as interim maintenance to the respondent wife observing that she is entitled to maintenance commensurate with the status of her husband. No doubt, the wife is a Doctor and also have earnings but the trial Court seems to have, taking into consideration the said fact granted only a nominal maintenance of ` 2000/- per month with litigation expenses of only ` 2000/-. This is what a minimum which could be awarded to the respondent. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that reply has not been considered. The contents of the reply have been referred to by the counsel which have been taken into consideration before dismissing this petition. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the documents placed on the record have not been taken into consideration. C.R. No. 3786 of 2011 (O&M) [3] I do not find any force in the said contention and is thus rejected the same. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. June 2, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE