Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.09.2011 Lalit Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Meena .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Meena-respondent-wife filed a petition for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) against Lalit Kumar-petitioner-husband. The trial Court partly accepted the petition, only relatable to the children, by virtue of impugned order dated 01.08.2011(Annexure P-3). 2. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-3) of the trial Court, the petitioner-husband preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 4. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that, the trial Court has committed a mistake in awarding exorbitant maintenance amount to the Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 2 children of the parties, lacks merit. 5. As is evident from the record that, taking into focus the fact, that the respondent-wife is running a Beauty-Parlour and is earning hand, the trial Court negate her claim of maintenance pendente lite. However, considering the income of the petitioner-husband, the trial Court awarded an amount of maintenance of `5,000/- per month each to her school going children, by means of impugned order dated 01.08.2011(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is running a beauty parlour and said fact has been admitted by the petitioner in her cross-examination as well as in the statement of her father recorded today in the court in connection with divorce petition. As such, petitioner herself is not entitled to grant of pendente lite maintenance. But however, the children of the parties namely Ankita-daughter and Tarun-son are school going children and the respondent is under the legal as well as moral obligation to maintain his minor children. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is wholesale dealer in grocery and is earning `70,000/- per month from that business. But on the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that he is computer repairer and earn `4,000/- per month if he gets regular work. But however, respondent has not denied specifically that he does not deal in grocery business. From the nature of business carried by respondent, it can easily be presumed that he must be earning at least `20,000/- per month therefrom and he is in a position to provide maintenance to his school going children. Keeping in view the earning capacity as well as social status of the parties, I order the respondent to pay maintenance to both the minor children @ `5,000/- per month each from the date of petition. In addition to that the respondent is also burdened with `5,000/- as litigation expenses. However, petitioner herself is not entitled for grant of any pendente lite maintenance and the application stands partly accepted and partly declined and the application stands disposed of accordingly without prejudice to my decision on merits of the case.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband did not point out any Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 3 material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned order is illegal and would invite any interference in this respect. 7. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned order in this regard. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23995-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.6027 of 2011 Present: Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE