IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1880 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.4.2009 Rishi Kapila ....Petitioner Versus Gitanjali Behl ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated March 6, 2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for reversing the order dated January 16, 2006 passed by the learned Court below granting maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the passing of the impugned order the circumstances have changed. Earlier the petitioner was earning small amount by doing some job. Now he is out of job and presently studying. He further submitted that after the marriage of the petitioner with respondent his parents had disowned him and he was living with his grandfather. Even he has now expired. He has no means to pay the maintenance. It was in these circumstances that the application for reconsideration of the order passed on January 16, 2006 was filed. However, the learned Court below considering the same to be an application for review had wrongly rejected the same. He further submitted that it is admitted fact on record that the respondent-wife was working and earning handsomely. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Admittedly the parties were married on February 26, 2001 and according to the petitioner they are living separate since April 2001. The submission that need to file the application for revision of the earlier order passed on January 16, 2006 arose because of change in circumstance as the petitioner is not earning anything now rather he has to spend for his education, has no legs to stand. Once the parties were married even if the respondent/wife was to live with the petitioner he would have spend much more than what has been granted by learned Court below as maintenance to the respondent-wife @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. C.R. No. 1880 of 2009 (O&M) -2- At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the dispute with the respondent finally in case some efforts are made for the same. As the divorce petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, he may explore the possibility of compromise/settlement between the parties in case the parties are agreed to that. (RAJESH BINDAL) 2.4.2009 JUDGE Reema