Civil Revision No. 6807 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6807 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Manohar Lal ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Usha Rani ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The grievance of the petitioner-husband is with regard to the quantum of the amount ordered to be payable by him as maintenance pendente-lite in the course of divorce proceedings. It was the petitioner- husband who filed the impugned divorce petition. In the course thereof, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite and also the litigation expenses. The averment made therein was that she has no means of sustenance for self and that the petitioner has monthly income of about Rs.50,000/- from his business which he is running at Panipat and also from his income from other sources. In that context, reliance was also placed upon the contents of affidavit dated 18.2.2008 (which the petitioner- husband had filed in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Panipat) in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Civil Revision No. 6807 of 2009 -2- **** Procedure wherein he admitted having a cash amount more than Rs.15 lacs. Learned Trial Court, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, awarded maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month and also awarded a sum of Rs.2100/- as litigation expenses. It is further apparent from the record that in a petition filed by the husband against the wife, the former has been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. A copy of that order is available on record as Annexure P/1. It is noticed therein that the wife and also the other respondents (who are children of the parties) did not file a reply to the plea for interim maintenance inspite of the fact that a number of opportunities were afforded to them. It follows therefrom that petitioner-husband shall have to, in practical terms, part with a sum of Rs.1500/- per month i.e. he shall have to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month to the respondent-wife in the divorce petition. He will be entitled to the interim maintenance granted in his favour from his wife in case No. 94 of 2008. That amount, by any standard of interpretation, cannot be described to be on the higher side. There is no acceptable evidence to prove that the respondent-wife has any independent means of sustenance for self. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 06, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge