Civil Revision No. 6591 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6591 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.5.2009 Dr. Gaurav Bhardwaj ..... Petitioner vs Dr. Shaloo ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Husband is before this court challenging the order dated 16.8.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), the respondent-wife has been held to be entitled to interim maintenance @ Rs. 9,500/- per month besides litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. It is an unfortunate litigation between two well educated persons on account of matrimonial dispute. The parties are doctors by profession. Due to temperamental differences, they could not settle in their matrimonial home and separated. Lot of litigation is going on between them. The respondent-wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act in which application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act was filed. The learned court below have fixed the maintenance @ Rs. 9,500/- per month. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C., maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- per month was fixed for the child born out of the wedlock. As the respondent-wife is independently working as Medical Officer with NABARD and Reserve Bank of India and earning handsomely, she is not entitled to any further maintenance. She can maintain herself from the salary, she is earning. The object of Section 24 of the Act is not to unduly Civil Revision No. 6591 of 2008 (2) enrich any of the parties, rather it is for sustenance in case one of the parties is not able to sustain herself/himself, some amount is required to be paid. It was further submitted that even the amount as is sought to be claimed to be spent on the welfare of the child who is suffering from autism and mental retardation disease is not actually being spent as there is no improvement in the position of the child rather it is being deteriorated ever since the parties separated and custody of the child is with the respondent. He further submitted that he was not being involved in the treatment of the child. In fact, the intention of the respondent is only to harass the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Sudeep Chaudhary vs Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 (SC) 536, to submit that the amount if any payable in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Act and any amount awarded in subsequent proceedings cannot be over and above the amount awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is working as Senior Medical Officer in the State of Haryana. Out of the salary earned, he is to maintain himself only as his father is retired senior officer who is getting handsome pension. The respondent is merely working on part time basis as Medical Officer with NABARD and Reserve Bank of India where her emoluments are merely Rs. 23,957/- per month. She is living with her parents and the child born out of the wedlock, who is suffering from autism and mental retardation disease, requires special treatment and education and on that Rs. 15,000/- per month is being spent as he is to be sent to different schools/ tutors for the purpose. On the other hand, carry home salary of the petitioner is Rs. 36,861/- per month which was further revised to Rs. 38,831/- per month. The amount of Rs. 9,500/- per month as has been awarded by the learned court below cannot be said to be on the higher side. However, he was fair enough to submit that the amount awarded to the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. may be adjusted out of that. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the petitioner who was present in the court in person that the Civil Revision No. 6591 of 2008 (3) respondent is not taking care of the child properly cannot, prima-facie, be believed for the reason that there cannot be any person more concerned than a mother of a child regarding the welfare of the child. Minor child who is suffering from autism and mental retardation disease will certainly needs special treatment, education and care on which substantial amount must be spent by the respondent as she is claiming at Rs. 15,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be on higher side considering the fee being charged even by the schools who are educating normal students. The respondent is merely working on contract basis and getting Rs. 23,957/- per month whereas the salary of the petitioner is about Rs. 36,000/- per month. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that the present petition are only for interim maintenance, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the court below in fixing interim maintenance at Rs. 9,500/- per month. However, as was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent, it would be the total amount of maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondent including the amount already awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. 29.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge