IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.417 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Sukhdevinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Kaur ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is husband's revision petition challenging the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby the respondent-wife has been granted maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the maintenance granted to the respondent-wife is excessive and the same is liable to be reduced. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the respondent- wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and the same has become final between the parties and therefore, the respondent- wife cannot be granted maintenance pendente lite more than the amount fixed by the Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is not a person of means and is a daily wager only and he has to support his other family members also and therefore, the amount of the maintenance be suitably reduced. CR No.417 of 2008 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has supported the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order has been passed by the trial Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances. In my view the maintenance pendente lite granted to the wife at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month is just and proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any judgment in support of his contention that if the maintenance has been determined under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. then the family court cannot grant higher maintenance. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. March 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE