Civil Revision No. 2448 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2448 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 3.5.2011 *** Puneesh Dewedi .. Petitioner Vs. Meeta Sharma .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. C.M. No. 11531-CII of 2001 is allowed and documents annexed thereto are taken on record. In a divorce petition filed at the instant of petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. After the contest, the application was allowed and the respondent wife and minor child, living with her, were granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month besides litigation expenses amounting to Rs.2000/-, vide order dated 11.12.2010. Instead of paying the interim maintenance, the husband filed an application seeking modification in the maintenance amount on the ground that the wife is now serving in a school at Patiala and hence, keeping in view the said fact, the maintenance amount be reduced. The learned Court below dismissed his application by dint of order dated 30.3.2011. Hence, the present revision petition impugning both the orders. The marriage between the parties, existence of a male child living with wife and the separation is not in dispute. Although, no cogent evidence with regard to income of the petitioner was proved, but considering his own admission qua his income of Rs.28,000/- per month, his monthly income was taken as such. The petitioner, admittedly, is serving Civil Revision No. 2448 of 2011(O&M) 2 in a multi national company, obviously with various bonus and incentives. The same are also apparent from the salary advice produced by the petitioner showing his net payable income of Rs. 51,684/-, Rs. 33,634/- and Rs. 11,691/- respectively. There is some variation in the perks of the petitioner, but considering the fact that it was only for quarter January, 2011 to March 2011 and not for the whole year, the monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.28,000/- per month seems not to be on excessive side. The petitioner is maintaining a sound financial status. There is social and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child and not to leave them at the mercy of her parents. Admittedly the wife is a qualified lady and even if she is making an attempt to earn some money to bring up her child in a better way, this would not be a factor which would disentitle her from claiming maintenance for herself as well as of her child from the husband because she is entitled to live the same life in terms of social and financial status in which she would have enjoyed if she continued to live with her husband. In view of the discussion above, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 03, 2011 Jiten