IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 66 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 10, 2009 Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Saroj Goswami … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. While allowing a plea under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner – husband to pay (to the respondent – wife) a sum of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite. The petitioner – husband is in revision. In support of the plea for invalidation of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 50% and is not possessed of sufficient means to even sustain himself. C.R. No. 66 of 2009 Though the fact, that the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 50%, is apparent from a medical certification placed on file, the petitioner – husband cannot wriggle out of the accountability of providing means of sustenance to the wife and his two sons who are putting up with their mother, particularly when it was verbally indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments before this Court that he earns a sum of only about Rs.50/- per day by running errands for a local Advocate. On the last date of hearing, a plea was raised that the petitioner is just not in a position to move about. That plea was contested on behalf of the respondent – wife. It was in the background of that plea that the parties were directed to appear in person. Though, it is apparent that the left arm of the petitioner – husband does not appear to be normal, he walked around and talked comfortably in the Court. It cannot be, thus, said that he is not in a position to earn anything. Even otherwise, the averment made on the last date of hearing becomes insignificant in view of the verbal averment that he earns a sum of Rs.50/- per day in the manner aforementioned. There is nothing on the file to support the bald averment by the petitioner – husband that the respondent – wife has earning from a beauty parlour she is running. In view, thus, of the fact that the petitioner – husband is legally bound to maintain a resource-less wife and the children born to the parties and also in view of the fact that the respondent – wife has not been proved to have any means of sustenance for 2 C.R. No. 66 of 2009 self and her two children, the impugned order cannot be faulted at all. The petition is devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The stay order dated 09.01.2009 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. March 10, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3