IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1860 of 2009 Date of decision : December 18, 2009 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner versus Paramjeet Kaur alias Sukhpreet Kaur ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. HR Nohria, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) None is appearing for the respondent in spite of service of notice for today. Earlier the respondent had put in appearance through counsel but none appeared for the respondent on the preceding two dates of hearing. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent for today. The notice has been served but none has come present on behalf of the respondent. Gurpreet Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 21.3.2009, (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, thereby disposing of application filed by respondent Paramjeet Kaur alias Sukhpreet Kaur under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses. Vide impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs 10,000/- as Civil Revision No. 1860 of 2009 -2- litigation expenses and Rs 7000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite for the respondent and the minor son of the parties, with effect from 21.2.2007, the date of filing of application under section 24 of the Act by the respondent. The petitioner filed petition under the Act seeking a decree regarding nullity of marriage between the parties on the ground that the respondent was already married with one Surjit Singh. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, respondent filed application under section 24 of the Act alleging that she has no source of income to maintain herself and the minor son of the parties living with her whereas the petitioner owns 15 acres of land and buffaloes and is running dairy farm and his income is Rs 25,000/- per month. The petitioner in his reply denied that he owns land or buffaloes as alleged in the application and alleged that he was earning his livelihood with great difficulty. The learned trial court disposed of the application vide impugned order dated 21.3.2009 in the terms mentioned hereinabove. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even the learned trial court observed in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order that no document had been placed on record by the respondent to depict that the petitioner owned land or that he was running a dairy farm but in spite thereof without assessing the income of the petitioner, the trial court has directed payment of huge amount by way of litigation expenses Civil Revision No. 1860 of 2009 -3- and maintenance pendente-lite. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that petitioner is already paying Rs 700/- per month as maintenance for the minor son as directed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After careful consideration of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and perusal of the record, I find that amount awarded by the learned trial court is highly excessive. There is no material placed on record by the respondent to depict the income of the petitioner. There was no material to depict that the petitioner owned land or was running dairy farm as alleged by the respondent. The learned trial court observed that the petitioner while appearing in the witness box stated his occupation as farming and therefore, he was deemed to be an agriculturist owning agricultural land. However, it has not been observed as to how it could be presumed that he was owning any land and if so how much. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is, in fact, an agricultural labourer. The petitioner as labourer may be earning Rs 3000/- to Rs 4000/- per month. Even if he owns small piece of land, he may be earning some extra amount. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be directed to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses and Rs 2000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite for the respondent and minor son of the parties from the date of application under section 24 of the Act i.e. 21.2.2007 till decision of the main petition filed under the Act by the petitioner, in addition to Rs 700/- per month payable as maintenance for the minor son under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Civil Revision No. 1860 of 2009 -4- Procedure. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned order dated 21.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot is modified to this extent and the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 18, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'