Civil Revision No.5920 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5920 of 2007 Date of decision: February 8, 2008. Amarjeet Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.D. Achint, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition at the instance of petitioner – husband is directed against the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon whereby, upon an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act), the respondent – wife has been granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.7500/- per month, besides payment of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. The parties were married on 28.11.1993 and a son was born out of the wedlock on 2.10.1995. The petitioner – husband has now filed a petition under Section 13(1)(A) of the Act for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent – wife moved an application under Section 24 Civil Revision No.5920 of 2007 -: 2 :- of the Act alleging, inter-alia, that she is a house-wife and has no independent source of income and the petitioner has failed to provide her day-to-day basic amenities, therefore, she deserves to be granted maintenance pendente lite to sustain herself. She has averred that the petitioner is running a business under the name and style of M/s Standard Tyres and Batteries, Gurgaon and also has an agency of JK Tyres. The petitioner is also stated to be running a workshop of wheel alignment and balancing and has employed as many as 12 persons under him. He is also maintaining facilities like car, scooter, mobile phone and possesses several immovable properties worth crores of rupees. The petitioner is an income tax assessee and is running more than one business establishments. On this premise, she has prayed that maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- be granted to her. In reply to the aforesaid application, the petitioner specifically asserted that all the necessities like food, clothing and shelter were being provided by him to the respondent and their child was also being maintained by him. It was further averred by him that “the respondent was living in the same house and all the facilities of day-to-day basic needs were given to her.” The learned Additional District Judge took specific note of the fact that the parties are residing in the same house, however, there are no conjugal relations between them. Thereafter, he has taken into consideration the latest income tax returns of the petitioner as well as the nature of business being run by him including the admitted fact that 5 persons are employed by the petitioner. The petitioner also appears to have Civil Revision No.5920 of 2007 -: 3 :- not disputed that he owns plots in Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon. On this premise, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that the petitioner is quite well-off and the maintenance to the wife has to be granted in accordance with the status of her husband. The learned trial court has accordingly granted an amount of Rs.7500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.3300/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since the respondent – wife is residing in the same house, the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.7500/- per month is on the higher side. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is explicit that the learned Additional District Judge was fully aware of the fact that the respondent – wife is residing in the same house. It is after taking notice of the said admitted fact that the learned trial court deemed it appropriate to grant interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.7500/- per month to the respondent – wife as against her request @ Rs.45,000/- per month. Since the petitioner has not been able to question the well reasoned manner in which the learned trial court has assessed his financial potentiality, no case to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out. At this stage, it may be noticed that the petitioner had got issued notice of motion by stating before this Court that “there are chances of compromise between the parties”. The parties were accordingly directed to be present in person in court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner as well as the respondent are present in court. The respondent – wife is ready and Civil Revision No.5920 of 2007 -: 4 :- willing to join the company of the petitioner and resume the conjugal relationship unconditionally. The petitioner, however, is totally obstinate and wants that respondent should agree for divorce in all circumstances. While dismissing this Petition, the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be burdened with the cost of this litigation as also the expenditure incurred by the respondent for travelling to Chandigarh. Consequently, this Revision Petition is dismissed with the costs of Rs.15,000/-, which the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent – wife on the next date of hearing before the learned trial court. February 8, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge