C.R. No. 5778 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5778 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 31, 2009 Vikas …..Petitioner Vs. Seema …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.600/- per month as maintenance pendent lite during the pendency of a divorce petition filed by the petitioner. C.R. No. 5778 of 2008 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is under-going sentence of life imprisonment in jail as such he cannot be said to have any income. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent- wife has contended that the factum of the petitioner being a convict was never disclosed as the marriage had taken place at Nirankari Bhawan, Mansoori, as per the custom of Nirankari mission on June 8, 2006. Though a fraud has been played upon the wife, still she is ready to live with the petitioner after he has under-gone his sentence. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that in view of the fraud having been played on the respondent and she having come to learn about the petitioner being a convict, she would not file any application for execution of the interim order till the petitioner is released after undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. The marriage of the petitioner to the respondent being an admitted fact, the amount of interim maintenance determined by the trial Court does not seem to be unreasonable, as Rs.600/- is the minimum which is required for sustaining the respondent. In view of the above circumstances and the statement made by counsel for the respondent, I do not find any ground for interference. Dismissed. August 31, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE