IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 187 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Meenakshi ….Petitioner. Versus Lokesh Kumar ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharamshala whereby he has awarded Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1200/- as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner-wife. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition against the wife. In these proceedings the wife filed an application for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The wife alleged that the husband runs a hotel consisting of more than 10 rooms besides a restaurant in Nurpur town and his income is Rs.30,000/- per month. The husband filed a reply to the application alleging that 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the wife is a graduate and is residing at Ropar with her maternal aunt. She is drawing a salary. It was further submitted that the respondent-husband is out of job. As far as the allegations with regard to the husband owning a hotel is concerned though there was general denial to the allegations made in the application but the husband did not state as to whom this hotel belongs to and what concern, if any, he had with the hotel. The learned trial Court awarded maintenance pendente lite as detailed above and against this order the wife is in appeal. 3. During the course of this petition the wife filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the hotel is being run under the name of Hotel Royal Dreams and consists of more than ten rooms and in addition to this the husband also runs a restaurant in Nurpur town. She clearly stated that the hotel is in the name of her husband or in the name of his father. The respondent has again filed an affidavit which to say the least is vague. In the first para of this affidavit it is stated that the wife has become Sadhvi (Preacher) and is residing with her maternal aunt and uncle in Rajpura and that she has sufficient income by means of offerings from her devotees. The husband has further stated that in the month of September, 2010 the respondent’s father has ousted him from the immoveable and moveable property and that he has no hotel/restaurant in his name in the Nurpur town. 3 4. It is difficult to believe the version of the husband. It is more than obvious that on one pretext or the other he is trying to avoid paying maintenance to his wife. Before the trial Court he claimed that his wife was a teacher but now his claim is that she is a Sadhvi and is getting sufficient income from the offerings made by her devotees. This was not stand taken in the trial Court. Another new stand which has been taken now is that in September, 2010 he was ousted by his father. It is convenient that this ouster is after the present petition was filed and it is obvious that this is a cooked up story. The father is a retired government servant and therefore, the restaurant/hotel has to be run by his family members. The husband has not given details of any other family members who are running the hotel. 5. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the husband is running a hotel though the same may be owned by his father. The maintenance granted by the learned trial Court i.e. Rs.1200/- per month is ridiculously low keeping in view living expenses in today’s date and age and also the family background of the husband which shows that he belongs to a fairly affluent family which owns a hotel. On the other hand the minor son of the parties is residing with the husband. 6. Keeping in view all these factors, I am of the considered view that the wife is entitled to maintenance of at least Rs.3,500/- per month and the order of the learned trial Court is 4 modified accordingly and it is directed that from 1st April, 2011 the husband will pay maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month to the wife. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 29th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge