Judgment:
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Surjit Singh (husband) has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khanna, whereby the respondent wife has been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month in the suit filed for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
2. In spite of service, no one is present on behalf of the respondent wife. I have heard the petitioner and gone through the impugned order.
3. In this case, the petitioner has not disputed the factum of marriage with the respondent. In the maintenance application, the respondent wife claimed that the petitioner husband is having the income of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per year from selling milk and Rs. 1,00,000/- from rent. She claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month.
4. The petitioner contested the aforesaid application on the ground that the respondent wife was having sufficient property in her parental village, which she got transferred in the name of her brother. She had also earned some amount from the land of the petitioner which remained under her possession since 1979 to 1998. It has been stated that the petitioner is an old person and the respondent wife is living separately at her own. It has also been averred that the respondent wife is living in adultery as she is having illicit relations with the brother of the petitioner. It has been further stated that he has paid some amount of maintenance in the appeal filed by him against the dismissal of his petition for divorce.
5. The trial Court after considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. In the impugned order, it has been specifically made clear that in case any amount has been paid towards maintenance pendente lite in the High Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted in the maintenance amount awarded in the present petition. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,500/- has been fixed by the trial Court keeping in view the land owned by the petitioner and the factum that the respondent is unable to maintain herself as she has no source of income.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent wife is not entitled for interim maintenance as she is living in adultery. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Har Kaur and Anr. 1970 Current Law Journal 648.
7. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The petitioner has yet to prove by evidence that the respondent wife is living in adultery. On mere allegation, she cannot be denied the interim maintenance, particularly when she is not in a position to maintain herself. In these days, the amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive and unreasonable. Hence, there is no merit in this petition.
8. Dismissed.