Civil Revision No.137 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.137 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.04.2009. Madan Pal @ Madan Lal Petitioner Versus Parvesh Kumari ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Poonam Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The parties are estranged spouses who are litigating before the Trial Court in the context of a petition filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of a decree for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent-wife also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed by the learned Trial Court which (the learned Trial Court) ordered that the petitioner-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite with effect from the date of the application and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner-husband is in revision. Civil Revision No.137 of 2009 -2- **** The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband, argues that the petitioner having no source of income whatsoever ought not to have been burdened with any amount of maintenance pendente-lite. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court proceeded on the premise that the petitioner-husband is a labourer. However, it cannot be ignored from consideration that the respondent-wife has to fend for herself and also her two children whom she had begotten from the loins of the petitioner-husband. There is no controversy about the legitimacy of the children. There is not even an averment on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife has any means of sustenance. Every able bodied husband is under a legal obligation to maintain a resourceless wife and the children of the parties. Even a daily wager gets about Rs.150/- per day in these days. In that view of things, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Trial Court and also the amount of litigation expenses cannot be said to be harsh in character. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge