IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 22.11.2010 C.R.No.6523 of 2010 (O&M) Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ranjit Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the presence revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 06.09.2010, whereby the respondent-wife has been awarded Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in which the respondent-wife has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, asserting that she is not possessed of any source of income and that the petitioner is employed in H.M.T., Pinjore and is drawing a salary of more than Rs.18,000/- per month. In reply, the petitioner asserted that the respondent-wife is possessed of sufficient means, as she is having two trucks inasmuch as she is still owner of one truck bearing No.HP-17-4156 earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month, whereas she has sold another truck bearing registration No.HR-58-0654. After considering the said pleas, the learned trial Court found that admittedly one truck has been sold, whereas an affidavit of sale has been filed in respect of the second truck bearing No.HR-17-4156. Considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court awarded Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. C.R.No.6523 of 2010 (O&M) Alongwith the present revision petition, the petitioner has attached Annexure P-4, which shows that vehicle bearing registration No.HP-17-4156 stands in the name of the respondent with the fitness certificate valid upto 12.08.2009, whereas truck bearing No.HR-58-0654 has been transferred in the name of Harbans Singh son of Soma Singh vide Annexure P-5. Relying upon Annexure P-4, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the respondent-wife is possessed of sufficient means of earning i.e. truck generating income of Rs.20,000/- per month and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The registration certificate of the vehicle in the name of the respondent-wife is not a conclusive proof that the said vehicle is owned by her. It is the stand of the respondent that she has sold the vehicle. She has filed an affidavit of sale in respect of her contention. The vendee may or may not get the registration certificate transferred in his name, but that fact alone does not prove that the respondent is the owner of the truck. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent that she is not possessed of any moveable or immoveable asset, the learned trial Court has rightly found that the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 22.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2