CR No. 1039 of 2010 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1039 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.03.2011. Suresh Kumari .......Petitioner Vs. Satpal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Respondent Satpal has filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the said petition, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred as Act) was filed. Vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2009, learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act and has allowed the maintenance pendente-lite to the petitioner @ ` 5,000/- per month. The petitioner was also awarded ` 1100/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner seeking enhancement of amount of maintenance. CR No. 1039 of 2010 - 2- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 reveals that the salary of the respondent is ` 27,560/-. Respondent has taken loan from State Bank of India, Central Bank and Syndicate Bank. Petitioner is paying ` 4,000/- per month towards installments to State Bank of India, ` 3,750/- per month towards installments to Central Bank and ` 3,000/- per month towards installments to Syndicate Bank. The petitioner was thus, paying ` 10,750/- per month towards repayment of loans. Admittedly, ` 4,000/- per month have been allowed as maintenance to the minor son of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2007. Thus, now the respondent has to pay ` 5,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente-lite to the wife-petitioner and ` 4,000/- per month to the minor son, in terms of the decree dated 10.12.2007. In all, respondent is paying ` 9,000/- towards maintenance to the petitioner and her son, who is admittedly residing with the petitioner. Taking in view the circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance, allowed by the trial court, cannot be said to be on the lower side. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE March 31, 2011 Gurpreet