C.R. No.1699 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1699 of 2010 Date of Decision.03.10.2011 Manjit Singh Dandiwal son of Gej Singh Dandiwal .....Petitioner Versus Khushpal Gill wife of Manjit Singh .....Respondent Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision petition is against the order of interim maintenance filed on an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act by the wife in the matrimonial proceedings for divorce instituted by the wife. It was contended by the wife that her husband was owner of a restaurant in Canada and his monthly income was more than Rs.1,50,000/-. The applicant had contended that she was unable to maintain herself and that she was having a difficult living. She had claimed Rs.20,000/- for minor child and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. The applicant herself is Government employee and she was posted as Lecturer in Govt. Senior Secondary School. The husband had, therefore, contested the application for interim maintenance saying that the petitioner cannot be treated to be a person, who cannot maintain herself and she was not entitled to maintenance as sought for. The trial Court had the salary certificate of the petitioner herself, which showed that she was earning Rs.18,000/- per month but still finding that C.R. No.1699 of 2010 -2- the husband, as a father of a child, was bound to maintain, directed Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance for the child. He also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The husband has filed the revision petition against the said order. 2. The trial Court was justified in refusing the claim for interim maintenance for the wife, taking particular notice of the fact that she was a Lecturer in Government School and she was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The direction had been made only for the benefit of minor child, who, the father was definitely bound to maintain and a provision for Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses is also reasonable and modest. I do not want to interfere with the order and the revision petition filed cannot be sustained. It is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 03, 2011 Pankaj*