IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6711 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Navjeet Kaur @Veera Wanti ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Charanjit Singh ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Respondent duly served through his counsel before learned trial Court. However, none appeared on his behalf. Hence, he is proceeded against ex-parte. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses granted by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 24.05.2010, Annexure P2 in an application filed by petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’) against respondent-husband. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.6711 of 2010 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, petitioner alongwith her two sons is living separate from respondent as serious allegations against her character have been falsely levelled by respondent-husband. It is further contended that respondent- husband is posted as Superintendent of Police and is getting handsome salary though he has not disclosed his total salary. It is further contended that elder son has completed MBA and however, he is unemployed and the other son is still studying in B.Pharmacy. The petitioner has to incur expenditure on the study of her son as well. Hence, it is contended that awarding of maintenance at the rate of `5000/- per month only is too inadequate. Admitted facts are that, parties are living separate. Divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent-husband is pending. Two sons are residing with petitioner-wife. Though it has not come on record as to how much salary the respondent-husband is getting. However, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that at present he must be getting salary of more than `50,000/- per month besides other perquisites as he is posted as Superintendent of Police. Hence, petitioner-wife is entitled to same standard of living as that of her husband. She is also incurring expenditure on the education of her two sons. Hence, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that ad-interim maintenance granted by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur is not adequate. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 is modified to the extent that respondent-husband is directed to pay `10,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance to petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the application during pendency of the main petition. 2 CR No.6711 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3