Civil Revision No. 6606 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6606 of 2011 Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Shashi Bala .... Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar @ Raju ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Shashi Bala, respondent in a proceeding brought under the provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce by her husband Raj Kumar @ Raju, has brought this revision petition seeking maintenance pendente lite to be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month and litigation expenses at Rs.11,000/-. Claiming herself to have no source of income to feed herself and her 7 months old child, Shashi Bala, petitioner had claimed that her husband is doing the work of contractor with electricity board and is also doing the work of 'Tantrik' at Ludhiana and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Raj Kumar @ Raju has opposed the application claiming that he is a temporary employee on daily wages basis with Punjab State Civil Revision No. 6606 of 2011 --2-- Electricity Board and his salary is Rs.3280/- per month. He has also claimed that his salary is deducted for holidays because he is working on daily wages. Considering the aforesaid facts and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 24.08.2011 allowed the application but granted maintenance pendente lite in a sum of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application and allowed litigation costs in a sum of Rs.2000/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount, Shashi Bala has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner alongwith her child of tender age require much more than Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. According to him, even if the respondent is taken as daily wage employee, his income cannot be taken at a sum below Rs.6000/- per month. He has, therefore, submitted that the amount awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana may be adequately enhanced. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent works as contractor or a Tantrik. On the other hand, the respondent had placed on record a certificate issued by the Superintendent(Accounts) Grid Division(City) Division, PSEB, Ludhiana showing his monthly income as Rs.3280/-. Civil Revision No. 6606 of 2011 --3-- It is true that if a person works as a labourer at construction site, he will get Rs.200/- per day. However, in that event, he may not be able to get work for all the 30/31 days of the month. Moreover, the physique of the respondent may not allow him to work as a construction labour. When it is a fact that he is working with PSEB, Ludhiana and is getting Rs.3280/- per month, the application has to be decided on this evidence and not on presumptions. Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has rightly balanced the needs of the parties and has granted maintenance pendente lite in a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to which no exception can be taken in the circumstances of this case. Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 01.11.2011 dinesh