IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1888 of 2009 Decided on : April 02, 2009 Aryavir Gulia ... Petitioner VERSUS Madhu ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that in the year 2003, he was receiving a sum of Rs.4352/-, therefore, the respondent could not be awarded maintenance at such a higher rate. Heard. The salary received by the petitioner, now after VIth Pay Commission Report has increased to Rs.11,125/-. In view of the evidence that the respondent wife is working as a teacher in the Delhi Public School, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, no maintenance was awarded to her, but the Court awarded maintenance to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month, which is not at a higher rate. Hence, no grounds to interfere. It is surprising to note that the application dated 12.12.2002 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by Madhu – respondent/wife, for setting the exparte decree dated 13.8.2002, is still hanging adjudication for the reasons best known to the Trial Court. In the circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the application for setting the exparte decree dated 13.8.2002 moved by the respondent/wife, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. March 31, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE