CR No. 6857 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6857 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.4.2011 Anita Dhingra ...Petitioner Versus Sham Sunder ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.SS Behl, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the respondent *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for enhancement of the maintenance granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) by learned trial Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') in proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act by respondent- husband against the petitioner-wife. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-wife is having two children i.e. one daughter, who is studying in 11th Class in a public school and one son, who is also studying in 8th class in CR No. 6857 of 2010 2 a public school and that both are residing with the petitioner. It is further contended that she is doing job of teacher in a private school and earning about ` 10,000/-per month and from the said meager income, it would be very difficult for her to maintain herself as well as to bear expenses of education of both the children and to maintain them. It is further contended that trial court has granted only `3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, which is too inadequate. It is further contended that respondent- husband is owner of a factory and also owns other immovable property including a plot and that he is maintaining two cars and a motorcycle and having sufficient bank balance and having no other liability. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel respondent-husband that factory owned by respondent has since been destroyed in the fire incident and he has suffered loss of ` 80 lacs. Respondent-husband has concealed his income. Even if his plea is accepted that his factory caught fire, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to earn by starting business afresh. He has not filed copies of his previous income tax returns and copies of income tax returns after fire. Admittedly, respondent-husband is a good businessman. He used to run a factory. He is having no other liability. Hence, taking into consideration the status of the parties, petitioner is entitled to same standard of living and that children of the parties are also entitled to get the same standard of education and living standard as they would have, had the parties been living together. Hence, in view of these facts, ad interim maintenance i.e. CR No. 6857 of 2010 3 ` 3000/- per month as awarded by learned trial court is too inadequate. The impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent-husband is directed to pay `6000/- per month as ad interim maintenance to the petitioner- wife from the date of filing of application during pendency of the main petition. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 6, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE