C.R.No.5 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.5 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 4, 2011 Narender Singh .....Petitioner v. Anita Rani .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 20.11.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which on an application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') for maintenance pendente lite, she was allowed maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3000/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. Petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act has been filed by petitioner against respondent-wife. During pendency of that petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act has been filed by respondent-wife for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, in which the impugned order has been passed holding that respondent-wife is entitled to get pendente lite maintenance @ Rs.3000/- from the date of application. She was also held entitled to get Rs.2200/- as counsel fee and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proof regarding income of the petitioner and that in fact he is earning only Rs.3000/- per month and hence maintenance pendente lite @ C.R.No.5 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Rs.3000/- per month as allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, is on the higher side. It has also been contended that respondent-wife is an educated lady and she can earn for herself. Admitted facts are that petitioner is running a mobile shop. It has been contended by respondent-wife that income of petitioner is Rs.25,000/- per month. Petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding his income from the shop being run by him. Hence, best evidence regarding his income was with-held by the petitioner. He has also failed to show that respondent-wife is having any income and is able to maintain herself. During these days of high prices, it would be very difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain even a modest standard of living with this meager amount of Rs.3000/- per month. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, while passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 4.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge