IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3230 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009. Bhupinder Jit Singh Petitioner through Mr. A.S.Khaira, Advocate Versus Gursharan Kaur Respondent through Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.01.2009 vide which his application for reduction of the maintenance pendente-lite granted to the respondent – wife vie order dated 15.1.2008, has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge [Ad- hoc], Patiala. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of interim maintenance. The trial Court vide its order dated 15.1.2008 granted Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente-lite. At that time, the petitioner was stated to be earning Rs.80,000/- per month as salary from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. The petitioner – husband thereafter moved the present application for reduction of the interim maintenance on the ground that he has lost the aforementioned job and is now hardly earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The application has been declined by the trial Court vide the impugned order. During the course of arguments it transpires that the petitioner has resigned from the earlier job. Admittedly, he is not sitting idle and has joined some other job, though claims to be at a reduced monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- only. It is too difficult to believe that a person who was earning Rs.80,000/- per month would volunteer to leave the job so as to accept a meager salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. July 28, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE