CR No.712 of 2010 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.712 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Rajesh Bajaj .. Petitioner Versus Poonam Bajaj ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent . . . This petition has been filed against the order of Matrimonial Court granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the respondent wife. Learned counsel has argued that in the application, the respondent- wife, who is herself working had claimed litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- and maintenance @ Rs.5000/- p.m. for the minor child. Learned Trial Court, however, keeping in mind the fact that the minor child had already been granted maintenance of Rs.3500/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C, therefore, declined to grant him any maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, apart from this, the learned Trial Court also granted litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the wife (to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been paid any expenses). However, without there being any prayer or pleading for the same, the learned Trial Court also granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. To the wife. It is this award of the maintenance of the wife which is under challenge. CR No.712 of 2010 :2: Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that in fact there was no prayer for maintenance of the wife, he has, however, preferred to argue that this amount has been mistakenly shown to be maintenance for wife but actually intended for the child. In my opinion, this explanation cannot be countenanced, particularly, when maintenance to the minor child has been specifically declined. In case, the respondent is aggrieved of the order declining maintenance to the minor child, it is open to her to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings. However, as matter stands maintenance cannot be granted to the respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that under the impugned order, the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife and prays for refund of the same or, to adjust the same against the future maintenance to the minor child. In my opinion, this amount can well be adjusted towards litigation expenses for this petition. With this clarification, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. March 9, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE