JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CR No.4768 of 2014 titled as “Ajay Gupta Vs. Meenakshi Gupta” [for short ‘Ist petition’] filed on 22.7.2014 against the order dated 3.7.2014 by which defence of the petitioner was struck off; and CR No.5582 of 2014 titled as “Ajay Gupta Vs. Meenakshi Gupta” [for short ‘IInd petition’] filed on 11.8.2014 against the order dated 23.5.2014, allowing the application of respondent, filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short ‘the Act’], awarding maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.55,000/- per month to the respondent and her two children and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. The Ist petition was ordered to be heard along with the IInd petition vide order dated 28.8.2014, therefore, the facts are being extracted from the IInd petition because the decision of the IInd petition is going to affect the decision of the Ist petition. 3. In brief, the petitioner-Ajay Gupta got married with the respondent-Meenakshi Gupta on 18.2.1990 at Chandigarh. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with two children, namely, Anand and Anchal. The petitioner is working in the Indian Oil Corporation and is posted at Panipat Refinery since May, 2011. He has his old widowed mother with him besides his wife and two children, who are at present residing in House No.2099, Sector 15C, Chandigarh. It is averred in the petition that behavior of the respondent-Meenakshi Gupta and his son was not good with his mother, who was turned out of the aforesaid house by them as a result thereof, she filed a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and has been allowed occupation of one room near rear side of the bedroom and adjacent bathroom in the house in Sector 15C, Chandigarh. The petitioner has challenged that he has been denied entry by the respondent in the said house and even the entry to his mother has been allowed with the intervention of police. The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce against the respondent in the year 2013 in which she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, which has been allowed by the learned Court below on 23.5.2014 granting maintenance @ Rs.55,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 25.10.2013 onwards besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 4. 4. Initially, the petitioner did not challenge this order and changed his counsel to appear before the trial Court, who filed his power of attorney on 3.7.2014 and sought adjournment for completing instructions. However, the trial Court vide its order dated 3.7.2014 struck off the defence of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that neither arrears of interim maintenance has been paid nor cross-examination of the witness has been started. 5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 3.7.2014 at the first instance by filing CR No.4768 of 2014 in which the Court had noticed that the arrears for the period of nine months from 25.10.2013 to July 2014 has accumulated to the tune of Rs.4,95,000/-. On 24.7.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to deposit the said amount in the Registry within two days and deposited the same on 31.7.2014 with the Registry of this Court. On 19.8.2014, petitioner challenged the order passed on the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order dated 23.5.2014 in the IInd petition has vehemently argued that he had transferred from his account a sum of Rs.1,68,300/- to the account of the respondent and had also made a payment of Rs.89,392/- to M/s Moti Provision Store, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh from 15.7.2013 to 3.2.2014. It is also submitted that besides the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,57,652/-, the respondent had also utilized a sum of Rs.1,11,533 on account of shares purchased by him in her name. This amount was withdrawn by the respondent from her ICICI A/c No.0174001003015 to meet her litigation expenses. It is also alleged that the respondent has been benefited from the sale of shares purchased by the petitioner out of love and affection to the tune of Rs.5,05,529/- for a period of 7.11.2013 till 31.7.2014 which is evident from the statement of account held by respondent under Customer ID No.529589993. It is also submitted that besides the total amount of the aforesaid three transactions of Rs.8,74,754/-, the petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- in the High Court towards payment of maintenance for the period from 25.10.2013 till July 2014. It is alleged that the petitioner had paid total amount of Rs.13,69,754/- and as such had paid the entire maintenance of Rs.55,000/- for more than 24 months i.e. two years from October 2013 to September 2015. It is alleged that the petitioner had paid total amount of Rs.13,69,754/- and as such had paid the entire maintenance of Rs.55,000/- for more than 24 months i.e. two years from October 2013 to September 2015. It is also submitted that the petitioner has to look after his old widowed mother, who is suffering from old age ailments and because of the adamant attitude of the respondent, he is being denied the entry in his own house by her as a result thereof he is not in a position to meet his children as well. The respondent had filed CM No.21721-CII-2014 in order to place on record her affidavit in which she has averred that she is just a home maker and looking after her two children, namely, Aanand, who is doing LLB, three year course from the Panjab University and is an aspirant for the Civil Services and had appeared in it in the year 2013 under the roll No.128405 and in the year 2014 under the roll No.276114. He had also appeared in the preliminary examination of the Haryana Public Service Commission on 3.8.2014 under the Roll No.19753. Therefore, the petitioner requires adequate amount for the studies of her son besides other expenses. It is also alleged that her daughter Anchal is studying in Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh in 8th class and in order to meet her expenses she had taken loan from Muthoot Finance Ltd. Sector 17, Chandigarh vide loan Numbers 011566 dated 7.8.2013, 006298 dated 14.3.2013 and 022897 dated 5.9.2014. It is also submitted that the income of the petitioner is around Rs.23 lacs per year and his mother is also getting pension of Rs.10,000/-. She admitted that the amount of Rs.1,68,000/- was transferred by the petitioner in her account from the period of November 2013 to March 2014 but it is alleged that the maintenance has to be paid from March 2014 onwards. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance. 8. There is no dispute that the total annual income of the petitioner is Rs.23,16,229/- which comes to Rs.1,93,019/- per month. However, the Court has taken his net salary as Rs.90,370/- which comes to Rs.10,84,440/- per year. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance. 8. There is no dispute that the total annual income of the petitioner is Rs.23,16,229/- which comes to Rs.1,93,019/- per month. However, the Court has taken his net salary as Rs.90,370/- which comes to Rs.10,84,440/- per year. It is not disclosed by the petitioner as to what happens to his income of Rs.1,02,649/- per month, which is the remainder after taking Rs.90,370/- from Rs.1,93,019/- and is a whopping amount of Rs.12,31,788/- per year. As a matter of fact, there are five persons involved in this case in which petitioner is the only earning member. His old widowed mother is living with him at Panipat where he is having accommodation provided by the Panipat Refinery, whereas respondent is living with her two children in the house of the petitioner at Chandigarh. If the income of the petitioner i.e. Rs.90,320/- is divided into five heads, it comes to Rs.18,074/- per head and if the said amount is multiplied by three on the one side i.e. towards the side of the respondent then it comes to Rs.54,522/-. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error on the part of the Court below in awarding Rs.55,000/- towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent wife and the two children. There is no argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the litigation expenses, therefore, the said amount is also maintained as such. Accordingly, the IInd revision petition filed against the order dated 23.5.2014 is hereby dismissed. 9. As regards the Ist petition directed against the order dated 3.7.2014 by which defence of the petitioner was struck off, the petitioner has alleged that earlier he had engaged Thakur Kartar Singh, Advocate, who has been superseded by the present counsel after obtaining no objection and on the date when the order dated 3.7.2014 was passed, he was busy in the Supreme Court and asked his associate Ms. Nikita Nigam to appear and seek an adjournment. The trial Court struck off the defence on the ground that the arrears of maintenance was not paid and the cross-examination of the witness has been started. Nikita Nigam to appear and seek an adjournment. The trial Court struck off the defence on the ground that the arrears of maintenance was not paid and the cross-examination of the witness has been started. Insofar as the cross-examination of the witness is concerned, it could be only done by the present Advocate Mr.Arvind Moudgil, who had a matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, he could not appear but the arrears of maintenance has already been deposited by the petitioner in this Court to the tune of Rs.4,95,000/-, which could be paid to the respondent, therefore, order of striking off the defence of the petitioner has to be set aside. Accordingly, the Ist revision petition is hereby allowed and order dated 3.7.2014 is hereby set aside. It is also made clear that the amount of Rs.4,95,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the Ist petition, shall be paid by the Registry to the respondent-Meenakshi Gupta on her representation after verifying her identity through her Advocate. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————