IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1099 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8th July, 2010 Gurdeep Singh Tiwana … Petitioner Versus Sukhdeep Kaur … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.B.S. Johal, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner had filed a divorce petition, in which an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 was filed by respondent-wife with a prayer that maintenance pendent-elite and expenses on legal proceedings be awarded in favour of the respondent- wife. The Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide his order dated 23rd September, 2008 (Annexure P-1) awarded Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite along with litigation expenses in favour of the respondent-wife. Aggrieved against the same, present revision petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 19.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed in an appeal under Section 29 of the Civil Revision No.1099 of 2009 (O&M) Domestic Violence Act by the Upper District & Sessions Judge-III, Jodhpur, wherein considering the fact that an amount of Rs.3.00 lac was transferred in the name of respondent-wife, maintenance pendente lite was reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/-. It is not disputed that the respondent-wife is also having a child, aged 11 years. There is a long drawn litigation between the parties. The effort made by Mediation and Conciliation Centre has also failed. Prima-facie, it seems to be a case of failed marriage which is beyond repair. I have heard counsel for the parties. Even though, vide order (Annexure P-2) Upper District & Sessions Judge-III, Jodhpur had reduced the maintenance pendente lite from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/-, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the order was passed in the month of May, 2008 and a period of more than two years has elapsed. This Court can also not ignore of the fact that due to inflation, the day-to-day living has become costly. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the changed circumstances, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) whereby Rs.5000/- was awarded as maintenance pendent-elite in favour of the respondent-wife, requires no interference. A Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17th August, 2009 had stayed the recovery of amount of Rs.2000/- per month. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, it is ordered that from 1st August, 2010, the respondent-wife shall be entitled to Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendent-elite. The amount paid in pursuance of order passed by the Upper District & Sessions Judge-III, Jodhpur (Annexure P-2), is subject to adjustment. 2 Civil Revision No.1099 of 2009 (O&M) With the observations noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 8, 2010 rps 3