Civil Revision No. 4073 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4073 of 2009 Date of decision : March 23, 2010 Dimple Reen Malik and another ....Petitioners versus Rajiv Malik ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 28.2.2009, Annexure P/4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby applications filed separately by both the parties under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from each other have been dismissed. Respondent husband filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Act against petitioner no. 1 whereas petitioner no. 2 is their minor daughter residing with petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 is employed as teacher in a private school Civil Revision No. 4073 of 2009 -2- getting salary of Rs 10,000/- per month. Respondent husband alleged that he has suffered paralysis and disability of 75% and therefore, he is not earning anything. The petitioners' case is that respondent is a qualified Engineer and has income of Rs 50,000/- per month from his business. He also had a house at Ludhiana which he has sold for more than Rs 20 lacs which amount is available with the respondent husband. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. It is correct that the respondent husband has suffered left Hemiplegia incurring disability of 75% as per certificate Annexure P/5. However, the said certificate dated 27.4.2007 mentions that the condition is non-progressive and likely to improve. Reassessment was recommended after two years. The respondent husband has not obtained reassessment after two years. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the reassessment is still pending before PGI authorities. However, almost three years have elapsed since certificate Annexure P/5 was issued and the reassessment was recommended after two years only. It may be added that the respondent is suffering from left Hemiplegia only, but he is able to move about. Respondent himself remained present in this Court on 8.9.2009. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent is unable to earn anything at all. On the other hand, respondent is a qualified Engineer. Moreover, the respondent is also having with him the sale proceeds of the house at Ludhiana which admittedly has been sold by the respondent. However, petitioner no. 1 herself is employed as teacher having salary of Rs 10,000/- Civil Revision No. 4073 of 2009 -3- per month. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to pay reasonable amount as maintenance pendente lite for petitioner no. 2 only who is minor daughter of petitioner no. 1 and the respondent. Keeping in view the interest income which the respondent might be deriving from the sale consideration of the house and also some income which the respondent must be earning and the skyrocketing prices these days and educational expenses of petitioner no. 2, the respondent is directed to pay Rs 3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to defendant no. 2 through petitioner no. 1 with effect from the date of filing of application under section 24 of the Act by the petitioners. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 23, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'