IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2948 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2011. Preeti Yadav. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Ravinder Kumar Dagar. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 03.11.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. CR No.2948 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondent-husband filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the present petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for ad-interim maintenance for herself and for her minor child. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide impugned order granted `2,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance to petitioner for maintenance of the minor child. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of maintenance awarded by learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon is too meager taking into consideration the fact that the salary of respondent-husband is `28,696/- per month. Whereas petitioner is getting only `12,231/- per month as net salary. Admitted facts are that, respondent-husband is employed in ICICI Bank and getting `28,696/- per month. There is also no dispute that petitioner-wife is also employed and however, her carry home salary is `12,231 /- per month. She has to maintain a minor child, who was 1-1/2 years of age at the time of filing of the petition. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is now 2-1/2 years of age and has started going to a playway school. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that ad-interim maintenance at the rate of `2,000/- per 2 CR No.2948 of 2011 month for minor child is too meager taking into consideration the status of the parties and salary of respondent-husband. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the amount of ad-interim maintenance to be paid to petitioner is increased from `2,000/- per month for the minor child to `3,000/- per month from the date of application. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3