Civil Revision No.4251 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4251 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2011. Gulshan Kumar ……Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. K. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Gulshan Kumar has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 08.10.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Petitioner has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( in short, the Act ) against his wife Manjit Kaur-respondent No.1. During pendency of the said divorce petition, respondents herein i.e. Manjit Kaur and Arshpreet (minor son of petitioner and respondent No.1) filed application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide Civil Revision No.4251 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - impugned order Annexure P-3 has granted maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No.2 only from the date of application, in addition to the litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant civil revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and repeatedly contended with great emphasis that no interim maintenance can be granted to the minor son of the parties and at best, provision for the same can be made in final decree under Section 26 of the Act. The contention is completely frivolous and meritless. It is surprising that learned counsel persisted with the contention even after going through Section 26 of the Act. The said provision clearly stipulates that the Court can also pass interim orders regarding maintenance of the minor child. Consequently, the contention that no interim maintenance can be granted to minor child (respondent No.2) under the Act cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contented that amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was given by the petitioner to respondent No.1 pursuant to compromise between them and, therefore, respondents are not entitled to interim maintenance. The contention is misdirected and misconceived because on this ground, interim maintenance has been declined to respondent No.1, but obviously Civil Revision No.4251 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - respondent No.2-minor cannot be refused maintenance on the basis of the aforesaid contention. Petty amount of Rs.1500/- per month has been granted as interim maintenance for respondent No.2-minor. Keeping in view the sky rocketing prices of every commodity these days, the amount of Rs.1500/- per month for respondent No.2 cannot be said to be excessive by any standards. On the contrary, expenses of his education are also to be met with. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner herein. The instant revision petition is completely frivolous and meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 15.07.2011. A.kaundal