Civil Revision No.5507 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.5507 of 2010(O&M) Varinder Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Jaspreet Kaur and another ... Respondents and Civil Revision No.7291 of 2010(O&M) Jaspreet Kaur and another ... Petitioner VERSUS Varinder Singh ... Respondent Decided on : January 17, 2011 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sunil Toni, Advocate for Varinder Singh – petitioner. Mr.Sartaj S.Narula, Advocate for Jaspreet Kaur – respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, i.e. No.5507 and No.7291 of 2010, both, arising out of the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana, whereby, Jaspreet Kaur – wife and Gurleen Kaur – minor daughter have been awarded Rs.3500/- and Rs.1500/- per month, respectively, as interim maintenance. Civil Revision No.5507 has been filed by Varinder Singh – husband (herein referred as `the petitioner') for reduction in the amount of interim maintenance, whereas, wife and daughter (herein referred as `the respondents') in Civil Revision Civil Revision No.5507 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] No.7291 have sought for enhancement of the same. Heard. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is having many commercial properties, which have been rented out and he himself has been running the business in the name and style of “M/s Aman Knitwears”, which is a sole proprietorship firm owned by him. She has alleged that the husband is having monthly income of above Rs.80,000/- from all sources and demanded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-, each, for her and the minor daughter. The husband in his reply, though has not specifically denied ownership of any of the properties, as alleged by the wife, but he has denied his income at Rs.80,000/- per month. He has further submitted that she had earlier been working at Sargodha Model School, Jail Road, Ludhiana as a teacher and drawing salary of Rs.5000/- per month. Later, she joined Devki Jain College, Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana at a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. He has further stated that presently, she has been engaged with ICICI Lombard Limited, Surya Complex, The Mall, Ludhiana at a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The Trial Court while taking note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respective claims of the parties are to be determined on the basis of the evidence, yet to be led on the record, but since the law in force is that the husband cannot be absolved from its liability to maintain his wife and minor daughter, awarded them interim maintenance @ Rs.3500/- and Rs.1500/- per month, respectively, which in my view is adequate and cannot be termed either excessive or on the lower side. Civil Revision No.5507 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] Even otherwise, it is a settled law that interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction can be justified only when the impugned order is palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant facts or ignoring the law or is the result of misconduct of the proceedings. No such fault is found with the impugned order. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. January 17, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE