C.R. No.984 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.984 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.02.2010 Rajeev Kaushal .……Petitioner Versus Smt. Seema ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Husband has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.01.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad thereby allowing application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) and directing the petitioner- husband to pay to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.3500/- per month for her and a sum of Rs.1500/- per month for the minor daughter residing with her, as maintenance pendente lite with effect from from the date of filing of the application. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The respondent-wife in her application under Section 24 of the Act alleged that she has no source of livelihood to maintain herself and her minor daughter residing with her. On the other hand, husband is qualified Medical Practitioner and earning Rs.40000/- per C.R. No.984 of 2010 -2- month. He is also maintaining a personal car and is leading luxurious life, but he has refused to maintain the wife and the minor daughter. The husband alleged in his reply that wife is serving as a teacher in a school, getting salary of Rs.8000/- per month, besides tuition income of Rs.5000/- per month and thus she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself. The husband also alleged that he has not sufficient means of livelihood as he is engaged in supply of medicines on commission basis and has no regular income. It was denied by the husband that he is practicing Doctor or that he is earning Rs.40000/- per month or that he is maintaining a car. Learned Trial Judge observed that the wife in support of his application filed affidavit, but the husband did not file any counter- affidavit. Obviously, in these circumstances, the stand taken by the wife stands uncontroverted and the reply filed by the husband without being supported by even his own affidavit is a waste piece of paper and of no value. The husband in his reply did not even deny that he is qualified Doctor. It would mean that the petitioner-husband is a qualified Medical Practitioner and is also carrying on business of supplying medicines on commission basis. In these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite of Rs.3500/- per month for the wife and Rs.1500/- per month for the minor daughter, who is school going, cannot be said to be excessive particularly because of the sky- rocketing prices of daily needs. Moreover, the husband is maintaining a car as per averments made by the wife. It would depict that the husband is leading a comfortable life. The wife and the minor daughter are also entitled to similar comforts. Consequently, C.R. No.984 of 2010 -3- the amount awarded by the Trial Judge is not excessive by any standards, although may be on the lower side. The trial Judge has also not awarded litigation expenses to the wife. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court at the instance of the petitioner- husband. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.02.2010. A. Kaundal