Civil Revision No. 5732 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5732 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 Kuldip Yadav ....Petitioner Versus Suman Yadav .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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 D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the trial Court, awarding a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month i.e. Rs.20,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the minor son as maintenance pendente lite, in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has relied upon the income disclosed by the respondent that the petitioner is earning Rs.3 lacs per month in Foreign Currency and, therefore, the sum of Rs.30,000/- is the just amount of maintenance pendente lite. Civil Revision No. 5732 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has disclosed the salary of the petitioner is 3421.56 New Zealand Dollars. He has given the petitioner's monthly expenses at 3441.70 New Zealand Dollars. The expenses disclosed in Annexure P.7 include house rent of 910 New Zealand Dollars; 600 New Zeland Dollars towards Food, Grocery and house hold stuff; 500 New Zealand Dollars towards law suit expenses; 400 New Zealand Dollars towards miscellaneous expenses; 800 New Zealand Dollars towards car repair etc. He has also included his expenses of visit to India as well. For determining the disposable income of the petitioner- husband, it is his monthly salary after statutory deduction, which is to be taken into consideration. Such salary is Rs. 3421.56 New Zealand Dollars [ Rs. 1,19,093.55 (upon conversion into Indian Currency as on the date of this order) ]. On the basis of the aforesaid monthly income, the maintenance pendente lite awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable, in any manner. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 20-10-2009 ds