IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 801 of 2007. Date of Decision: 08st January, 2008... Sham Sunder ...Petitioner through Mr. Pankaj Maini,Advocate Versus Lavleen ...Respondent through HPS Ghuman, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – husband seeks setting aside of the order dated 9th January, 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the respondent – wife has been granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month in addition to Rs.5000/- in lump-sum as litigation expenses. The brief and undisputed facts of the case are that the parties got married in March, 1999 and there is no child born out of the wedlock. The petitioner at that time was serving in the Income Tax Department. However, his services were later on terminated on the ground that he had procured the same by fraudulent means. The said order is said to have been impugned by him before the Central Civil Revision No. 801 of 2007. ::-2-:: Administrative Tribunal. Meanwhile, their marriage also ran into rough weather which led the respondent – wife to file a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage. During the pendency of the said petition, she moved an application under Section 24 of the said Act which has since been allowed vide the impugned order, referred to above. Two faced contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is argued that since the petitioner has no source of income, he can not be fastened with the liability to pay interim maintenance to the respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pramila Bhatia v Vijay Kumar Bhatia, 2001(1) Civil Court Cases, 133 (Rajasthan) and another judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pushpa Kathju & Ors. V Amit Mohan S.Dahiya Badshad, 1996(2) Civil Court Cases, 229. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact he is required to look after and maintain his unmarried sister as well as aged mother also. Concededly, the respondent is not in any employment and has no tangible source of livelihood. It may be true that the petitioner is not in a government employment at present but that by itself is no ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent – wife. At the best, it would be one of the factors to be kept in view while assessing the quantum of maintenance to which the Civil Revision No. 801 of 2007. ::-3-:: respondent is held entitled. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner is required to look after his aged mother and unmarried sister can also be taken into consideration while determining the maintenance amount. Per-se, on these grounds, it can not be said that the respondent is not entitled for the grant of maintenance. The fact that the petitioner is an able-bodied person and is stated to be working as a Stenographer or he is in a private job, obligated him to maintain his wife. The aforesaid relevant factors have been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order as in the present era of high prices, a meager amount of Rs.2000/- per month only has been granted as an interim maintenance. For the reasons aforesaid, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. January 08, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE