Civil Revision No. 357 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 357 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.1.2010 Fateh Singh ....Petitioner Versus Bandana Sharma ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. It is the husband who has a grievance with the validity of the order dated 4.5.2009 vide which the learned Trial Judge, while allowing the plea filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. In obtaining that view, the learned Trial Court noticed that there is no controversy about the inter-se relationship between the husband and wife. The impugned order also noticed that the husband had not placed on file any documentary evidence in support of averment that the respondent- wife has income of Rs.25,000/- per month from her overseas business. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner-husband, who is a public servant in the employment of Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 357 of 2010 -2- **** Administration, is a salaried person. It was for him to have placed on record relevant documentation to indicate the exact salary drawn by him. The salary certificate, if produced in the context, would obviously have indicated the gross salary, the statutory and voluntarily deductions and also carry home salary. In the absence of the salary certificate having been made available to the learned Trial Court and also in view of the fact that husband has not been able to place any documentation on record to falsify the averment that she has no means of sustenance for self, the impugned order cannot be faulted on any valid score. However, an able bodied husband is under a legal obligation to maintain his resource-less wife. The fixture of Rs,3000/- per month maintenance also cannot be faulted because it cannot be said to be on the higher side. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the quantification of maintenance payable is harsh in view of the fact that the petitioner also has to look after his aged parents. Learned counsel was called upon to invite the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the petitioner herein to the application which the respondent-wife had filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The purpose of the query was to relate the averment presently made to the pleadings made by the husband before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel, who is having the copy of the reply in the brief, has been through that documentation and has no option but to concede that the petitioner-husband did not aver in the course of reply that he has aged parents to support. She Civil Revision No. 357 of 2010 -3- **** concedes that reply does not, at all, make a mention of any liability upon the petitioner husband. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merits and is ordered to be dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. January 20, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE