-1- Civil Revision No.1456 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 03, 2011. Civil Revision No.1456 of 2011 (O&M). Kamal Kishore ... Petitioner VERSUS Rohini alias Dazy ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. Navin Chowdhri, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The marriage between Kamal Kishore (petitioner) and Rohini alias Dazy (respondent) was solemnized on 18.1.2008. Out of this wed-lock, a daughter was born, who is now residing with the respondent. When the relations between the husband and wife strained, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') against the -2- Civil Revision No.1456 of 2011 (O&M). wife seeking divorce from her on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act before the trial Court for grant of maintenance pendente lite for herself and the minor daughter as well as litigation expenses. The trial Court, vide order dated 4.1.2011 allowed maintenance pendente lite to the wife and the daughter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month i.e Rs.6,000/- for wife and Rs.4,000/- for minor daughter besides awarding litigation expenses to the respondent-wife to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner has challenged this order of the trial Court by way of filing this revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. No doubt, both the parties raised allegations and counter allegations regarding their respective sources of income before the learned trial Judge, but it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and and his minor daughter. The amount fixed by the trial Judge as maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be excessive. The petitioner is admittedly a Dentist and is running an independent clinic. Keeping in view the profession of the petitioner, the trial Court assumed the income of the petitioner to be Rs.35,000/- per month and, accordingly, fixed the aforesaid amount of maintenance pendente lite in respect of the respondent-wife and the minor -3- Civil Revision No.1456 of 2011 (O&M). daughter and the litigation expenses. No fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court while granting the aforesaid amount to the respondent-wife and the minor daughter. This revision petition is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 03, 2011. JUDGE ak