IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 13183 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.8.2009. Lt. Col. Gurinder Singh Dhillon --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 10.8.2009, whereby the maintenance allowance in favour of the wife and two daughters of the petitioner has been revised from 22% to 33%. The factum of marriage with the respondent no.7 is not disputed. The petitioner claims to have filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Pune, which is pending there, though a transfer petition has been filed by respondent no.7 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case from Pune to Chandigarh. The respondents have made an application before the army authorities seeking maintenance for herself and two daughters. The said application was allowed and a maintenance allowance @ 22% was awarded to respondent no.7 vide letter dated 27.2.2007. The respondents claimed enhancement of the maintenance allowance vide application dated 5.1.2008 and respondents have accordingly passed the impugned order enhancing the maintenance amount from 22% to 33%. From the impugned order it appears that 22% amount has been awarded for the wife-respondent no.7 and 5.5% each for the two daughters. It is mentioned in the petition that the elder daughter is above 18 years of CWP. No. 13183 of 2009 -2- age, however, none of the daughters are married. The petitioner is under legal and moral obligation to maintain the wife and the daughters. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondents did not claim any maintenance before the Civil Court, hence the award of the army authorities is unwarranted. No provision of law has been brought to my notice which prevents the army authorities from granting maintenance in view of the clear statutory provisions contained under Section 90(1) of the Army Act. The quantum of maintenance is also reasonable and not excessive in view of the fact that two grown up daughters are staying with the respondent-wife. From the impugned order it also appears that the differential amount of maintenance has been awarded w.e.f. 30.10.2007 i.e. difference between 22% and 33%. It is also stated that the recovery of the maintenance amount will not exceed 50% of the pay in a month. This is in accordance with the requirements of law. In view of the above circumstances, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.8.2009 lucky