C.R. No. 5796 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5796 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.7.2009 Than Singh Rawat .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Savita Devi ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions i.e. C.R. No. 5796 of 2008 and C.R. No. 757 of 2009 as they arise out of the same order. On an application made by the respondent / wife in a pending petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned matrimonial Court fixed the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 4,000/- ( Rupees four thousand only ) per month. In addition, the wife was also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only ). The petitioner /husband has challenged the order by claiming therein, that the respondent / wife is not entitled to any maintenance, as she herself is employed as JBT Teacher and has means to maintain herself. The respondent / wife has also invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order by claiming, that she is entitled to enhancement C.R. No. 5796 of 2008 2 of compensation, in view of the liabilities of maintenance, of two daughters. The salary certificate of the respondent has been placed on record, which showed that the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs. 27,856/- ( Rupees twenty seven thousand eight hundred and fifty six only ), out of which the deductions are to the tune of Rs. 17,965/- ( Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty five only ). Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner is only getting approximately Rs, 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only ) per month in hand. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that wife is employed as JBT Teacher and is getting salary of Rs. 14,129/- ( Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred and twenty nine only ) per month, out of which compulsory deductions of Rs. 1030/- is being made. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that the pay of respondent / wife has been revised, but there is no document on record to prove this. If the impermissible deductions are taken out from the salary of the petitioner / husband it can safely be said that his carry home salary for the purpose of application under Section 24 of the Act, is Rs. 16,500/- ( Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred only ), whereas the carry home salary of the respondent for the purpose of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is Rs. 13,000/- ( Rupees thirteen thousand only ) per month. The reading of the impugned order shows, that the learned Matrimonial Court while granting maintenance to the respondent / wife has taken into consideration the factum that the respondent / wife is maintaining two daughters, one daughter additionally has been allowed maintenance @ C.R. No. 5796 of 2008 3 Rs. 1500/- ( Rupees one thousand and five hundred only ) independently. The other daughter though, married is deaf and dumb, the wife is also maintaining her. Prima facie on the facts, referred to above, the wife is not be entitled to maintenance pendente lite, however, keeping in view that husband is also responsible to maintain the daughters, this also is to be taken into consideration, for decreeing the petition. The daughter who is doing MBBS has to incur lot of expenses. She is staying in a hostel and her expenses cannot be less than Rs. 6,000/- ( Rupees six thousand only ) per month. In view of this, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is not disputed, that it is the respondent / wife who is meeting all the expenses of the study of daughter, and is also looking after married daughter who is deaf and dumb, though married. The respondent / wife also claims litigation expenses, for contesting her revision petition in this Court. As observed above, she is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite, however, she is entitled to litigation expenses, which are assessed at Rs. 5,500/- ( Rupees five thousand and five hundred only ). The order does not call for any interference as the amount awarded in her favour is to be used by her daughter to complete her studies. For the reasons stated above, both the revision petitions are dismissed. 30.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE