JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. (Oral):- In this petition, the petitioner-husband has assailed the order of enhancement of amount of maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month, awarded in favour of the respondent-wife by the learned Sessions Judge modifying the order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the learned trial Court in petition No. 91-4 of 2005. 2. The relationship of husband and wife is not denied by the parties. The respondent is a house wife whereas petitioner her husband is a waiter employed in the Tourism Department of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent is a chronic patient of gout and lives in Shimla with her son, for the constant treatment of her disease. According to the petitioner, she was living with his brother in adultery. However, he has provided a house and a land to her in his native village and she has an income therefrom. The respondent-wife has supported the allegations of neglect and refusal by leading evidence but the petitioner herein, after the close of her evidence chose to remain exparte and did not lead any evidence. The respondent-wife examined three witnesses and also proved the salary certificate of petitioner-husband Ext. PW-1/A which shows his salary @ Rs. 7212/- per month. She testified on oath that she was suffering from a chronic gout disease for which she wanted substantial amount to purchase medicine. She also stated that for the last five years, she was not getting anything in terms of maintenance. She asserted the neglect and refusal by her husband-petitioner. Even she has made a complaint to the Women Commission against him which yielded no result. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the enhanced amount was wholly unjustified and further that it stands proved on record that the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself from the landed property of the petitioner-husband. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions so raised. On having examined the record of the case carefully in meticulous details, I do not find that contention raised was either justified or born out from the record and caused miscarriage of justice and/or was flagrant violation of law which calls for any interference by this court. The neglect and refusal to maintain her stands proved and the unproved allegations of adultery made by the petitioner show his hostility not to maintain his wife. The neglect and refusal to maintain her stands proved and the unproved allegations of adultery made by the petitioner show his hostility not to maintain his wife. find no fault in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. 5. Record of the learned trial Court be returned with an authenticated copy of this order.