C.R. No. 2728 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2728 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: January 13, 2009 Babli Devi .. Petitioner v. Pawan Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned court below has fixed the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner at Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition and also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/-. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 9.12.2001. Out of the wedlock, a male child, namely, Hemant was born on 10.4.2004. It is alleged that ever since the marriage, the petitioner was being harassed by the respondent and his family members. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on 5.11.2006. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the admitted facts on record are that the respondent is an Advocate by profession and practising in District Courts, Karnal. He owns 16 kanals and 11 marlas of land, having an income of about Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum therefrom. Further, he is a partner in a Commission Agent Firm, namely, M/s Babu Ram Bhagat Ram with 1/4th share. He is also maintaining a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-05-M- 0818. The respondent is further alleged to be owning residential houses, one of which situated in Krishna Colony, Ladwa is stated to have been rented out. Referring to the aforesaid material, the submission is that the amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned court below at Rs. 1,500/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- only is quite meager and the same deserve to be C.R. No. 2728 of 2007 [2] increased by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, though admitting the fact that the respondent is a practising Advocate at District Courts, Karnal, submitted that he was merely a beginner. His earning is not that much that he can pay more than what has been determined by the learned court below. He further submitted that vide dissolution deed dated 31.3.2007, the respondent has already retired from the partnership firm and there is no question of placing reliance thereon for the purpose of determination of maintenance payable to the petitioner. Regarding the land and the house owned by the respondent, the facts are not in dispute. As regards the Maruti car, the submission is that the same has been purchased by the respondent after raising loan and he has to pay the instalments also. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned court below, shows that the material, which is referred to by the parties, has not been considered at all. What is admitted on record is that the respondent-husband is a practising Advocate at Karnal for the last about 6 years. He is owning a Maruti car, which was purchased by him in March, 2003. It is further not in dispute that he owns 16 kanals and 11 marlas of land and also a residential house. As far as the respondent's being partner in the firm, namely, M/s Babu Ram Bhagat Ram is concerned, though in the impugned order dated 26.4.2007, it is recorded as an admitted fact with the explanation that the respondent is not having income from the firm, however, before this Court, a copy of retirement-cum-dissolution deed was produced claiming that the respondent stood retired w.e.f. 31.3.2007. Be that as it may, but other facts, namely, the respondent being a practising Advocate at District Courts, Karnal for the last about 6 years; his ownership of 16 kanals and 11 marlas of fertile land; his maintaining a Maruti car since March, 2003 coupled with the fact that the respondent is paying the instalments of loan raised for purchase of the car, I do not find that the amount of maintenance, as has been determined by the learned court below at Rs. 1,500/- per month would be a reasonable amount. Till such time, the parties part ways, the petitioner is also entitled to live in the same dignity as the respondent is living. An Advocate's wife, who is maintaining a car, cannot possibly even manage bare necessities in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month, what to talk of comfortable living. Accordingly, in my view, Rs. 4,000/- per month would be reasonable amount of maintenance which should be paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the application. As regards litigation expenses, even that also needs C.R. No. 2728 of 2007 [3] enhancement considering the cost of litigation these days. The same is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.1.2009 mk