IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.07.2010 C.R.No.1225 of 2010 Smriti and another ...Petitioners Versus Rajinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Vivek Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court on 13.11.2009 granting a sum of Rs.2000/- per month each, as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.3,300/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgment of this Court reported as Naresh Rani and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Bansal 2007 (2) HLR 705 has not been noticed by the trial Court. As per the said judgment, the number of family members have to be treated as units and each family member shall be entitled to one unit of the salary as maintenance. It is, thus, contended that out of salary of Rs.12,631/-, the petitioners are entitled to 2/3rd as maintenance pendente lite. The grant of maintenance pendente lite is to provide funds so that the family members maintain almost the same standard of living as that of prior to separation. The grant of maintenance is neither intended to be bounty or pittance. The order relied upon by the petitioners is in view of the facts on record of the aforesaid case. It does not lay down a principle of award of maintenance pendente lite. In the present case, Rs.4000/- has been C.R.No.1225 of 2010 awarded as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioners, which includes a minor daughter of about four years, which is almost 1/3rd of the amount of salary. The normal rule of maintenance is 1/3rd of the family income. Almost 1/3rd of the income of the respondent has been awarded as maintenance pendente lite. Therefore, the amount awarded cannot be said to so unreasonable, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality, irregularity or lack of jurisdiction, which may call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 12.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2