C.R. No. 922 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 922 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.1.2010 Rajesh Verma .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sangeeta Verma ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Verma, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.1.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, vide which application moved by the respondent / wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands allowed. The petitioner / husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. On notice, respondent / wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses by claiming, that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month. However, the petitioner denied the income, and pleaded that he was only earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month. C.R. No. 922 of 2009 2 The learned Court below, therefore, came to the conclusion, that both the parties have not come out with truth, therefore, held that guess work was required to be done to assess the income of the petitioner for determining maintenance pendente lite. The learned Court below, therefore, keeping in view the age, social, economic & education status of the parties, assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month for the purpose of maintenance pendente lite. The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was disposed of by fixing maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner merely states, that some amount should be reduced. This is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order. The learned Court has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the petitioner, in view of the false stands taken by the parties. No ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. 20.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE