IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4037 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Raj Kumar ......Petitioner(s) Versus Smt. Sidha @ Samiksha ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is husband's revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby the respondent-wife has been granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of application of interim maintenance along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/- Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not doing any work and therefore, he was not liable to pay the maintenance as he was not having any income. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent-wife is not entitled to any maintenance as she was earlier married to some other person and had married with the petitioner without getting any divorce from him and therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the quantum of maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court has not been challenged. What has been argued before this Court is that the petitioner was not liable to pay on the grounds as aforesaid. There is no valid proof as to whether the respondent was married earlier to someone else or not, CR No.4037 of 2010 -2- and is a question which can be decided only by taking evidence in the main proceedings and therefore, the same will not come in the way of the Court to grant maintenance pendente lite to the respondent with whom the petitioner is admittedly married. Other argument of the petitioner that he is not having any income allegedly as per the respondent-wife in a complaint is also of no merit. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an able bodied person. It is well settled that the husband-petitioner is liable to maintain his wife if she has no other means for her sustenance. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent-wife is having any income. Thus, he is liable to pay the maintenance. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this revision petition. No other point was urged. Dismissed. July 5, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE