IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 75 of 2011. Date of decision: 4.7.2011. Sushil Sagar Jagotra ….. Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Archana Gupta …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T.S.Bhogal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This revision has been directed against order, dated 26.2.2011 in CMA No. 22 FTC/3 of 2010, passed by learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Solan. There is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. In that petition, the respondent had filed an application, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of maintenance to the child Ms. Deepali, aged seven years studying in St. Luke’s School, Solan. 2. The learned Senior Advocate has submitted that learned Addl. District Judge has observed that both the parents are liable to maintain the child, but he has fixed Rs.3000/- per month maintenance to be paid only by the petitioner without taking into consideration the contribution of the respondent-mother. It has not been denied that petitioner is in service, so also the respondent. The gross salary of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… the respondent has been shown as Rs.23,155/- in letter dated 21.8.2010. The learned District Judge has observed that the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.21,046/-. It has not been denied that Ms. Deepali is the only daughter of the parties, who is studying in good convent school. It is not the specific case of he petitioner that he has to support anybody else other than Ms. Deepali. The petitioner himself is living with his brother where their mother is also living. In these circumstances, the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month fixed by the learned Addl. District Judge for child Ms. Deepali to be paid by petitioner cannot be said to be on higher side keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In view of above discussion, the petition is dismissed, so also CMP No. 592 of 2011. July 4, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.