IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6909 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 16, 2011 Krishnan Sairam .. Petitioner Vs. Sushmita Bhatacharjee and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushmita Bhatacharjee, respondent No.1 in person . A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, affixing maintenance pendente lite @ `7000/- per month and `8000/- as litigation expenses in favour of the respondent No.1 in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted both the parties are earning hands, therefore, the respondent should not have been awarded maintenance as the maintenance is awarded to the women who have no sufficient means to maintain themselves. It has also urged that the respondent is earning `22000/- per month, whereas, the petitioner is getting monthly salary in the scale of `25000/-, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. Having examined the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner is not correct in his version. He is earning handsome salary. His salary slip for the months of October and November, 2009 reveals that his gross salary is `72860/- and carrying home salary is more than `58000/- per month. At the same time, the salary slip of the respondent for the months of June and October, 2009 reveals that her income was `60995/- per month. The respondent while appearing in person has stated that she has left her previous job and now is not earning such good package, therefore, she needs maintenance pendente lite to pull on with her life. Civil Revision No. 6909 of 2010 -2- The petitioner could not rebut the aforesaid contentions regarding the income addressed by the respondent. As such, the crux is that the petitioner is having handsome salary package and is in a position to maintain his wife. It is also well settled that the maintenance could be awarded keeping in view the income, status of the parties and the conditions or environments in which they are living and the expenses which are spent on their living. At this stage, wife respondent No.1 has stated that she had no objection if the amount of maintenance awarded to her is reduced to some extent. In such situation, this petition is partly allowed with the modification in the impugned order that the maintenance pendente lite awarded to the respondent is reduced to `4000/- per month which would be payable by the petitioner from the date of application. As regards the litigation expenses, those shall remain intact. February 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge