IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil. Misc. No.30603-CII of 2010 and Civil Revision No. 5781 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 21, 2011 Simaranpreet Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Ramanpreet Kaur alias Reeta Rani .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Pal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the trial court allowing the maintenance pendent lite to the respondent. The petitioner has been appearing in person, but today, he has not turned up. Having perused the records of the case, the main anticipated argument of the petitioner appears to be that an amount of Rs.3.90 lacs has already been paid to the respondent in lump sum in lieu of the past, present and future maintenance and the said amount has never been returned and the court while awarding maintenance has not taken into consideration the factum of payment of Rs.3.90 lacs to the respondent- wife. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the said amount of Rs.3.90 lacs was returned to the petitioner on 23.1.2009 after an amicable settlement between the parties, however, the petitioner had turned her again out of the matrimonial house. In any case, it is a matter of evidence whether the respondent had not returned a sum of Rs.3.90 lacs to the petitioner, the court is to see that it is the legal obligation of the petitioner to maintain the respondent- wife and no evidence has been brought on record to show if she is able to maintain herself. Civil Revision No. 5781 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** In view of the matter, it is observed that this petition sans merit and the impugned order appears to have been passed in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 21, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge