Civil Revision No. 3775 of 2009 (O&M) -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3775 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kaur and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. Civil Misc. No.312-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No.313-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-9 to P-17 are taken on record. Civil Revision No.3775 of 2009 While allowing a plea under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the then learned District Judge granted interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife to the extent of Rs.2500/- per month. A sum of Rs.5500/- was awarded as litigation expenses. In obtaining that view, the learned Trial Judge was influenced by the fact that the wife had filed an affidavit in support of her averment that she has no means of sustenance and that the petitioner-husband has income at the rate of more than Civil Revision No. 3775 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** Rs.15000/- per month from his employment in the Police Department. The averment, in the context, was that the petitioner-husband had otherwise been presently deputed to Excise and Taxation Department. The affidavit filed by the wife had not been rebutted by the petitioner-husband by filing his own affidavit. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner-husband opted to refrain from filing the affidavit in support of the averment that the wife is well educated and earns a sum of rupees about 20,000/- by assignment of tuition. There can be no dispute with the proposition that an able bodied husband is legally bound to maintain his wife who has no means of sustenance for herself. In the present case, the affidavit-supported averment made by the wife had not been rebutted by the petitioner- husband by filing an affidavit of his own. The petitioner-husband did not place his salary certification on record to challenge the quantification of the amount payable as interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The impugned order is valid in law and does not call for any interference. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 11,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE