Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.08.2009 Harnam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Balwinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 17716-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of Annexure P1. CR No. 4314 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.5.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, granting interim maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month, with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The respondent-wife claimed, that she is unemployed and has also to see a minor daughter, who is school going. It has also been Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2009 -2- pleaded, that she has no independent source of income and is on the verge of starvation, whereas petitioner is a man of means. He is non- resident Indian working in Sweden and earns about Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) per month. The application was contested, wherein a stand was taken, that the respondent-wife is earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month, by stitching. Furthermore, she has more than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only), which she had received from her first husband at the time of panchayati divorce. The application was also contested on the ground, that respondent-wife had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance from two places, though maintenance is said to have been granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Courts below, taking in view the fact, that the petitioner-husband claimed that he was working as labourer, assessed his income as labourer and fixed maintenance at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month and litigation expenses at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the learned trial Court has granted the maintenance without considering the fact, that the respondent-wife was herself earning and self-dependent. He re- asserted the plea taken before the learned trial Court, that she was earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month by stitching. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as no material has been placed on record in proof of the contention, that the respondent-wife was doing some tailoring work Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2009 -3- and was self-dependent. Mere assertion, which is not supported by material document, has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. The maintenance pendente lite fixed is rather on the lower side and, therefore, the order passed does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 03, 2009 rs