JUDGMENT Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 19.03.2012 whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 11.08.2011 granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner was set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No.1 is working as Additional Sessions Judge in the State of Uttrakhand and his income has rightly been assessed at Rs.50,000/- approximately in the year 2011 by the trial Court. He further submits that the learned Revisional Court has relied upon the income tax returns of the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 wherein her income was assessed as Rs.1,26,000/- per annum and two entries in her savings bank account Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- in the year 2007 to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient income of her own so as to dis-entitle her to claim maintenance from her husband. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has suppressed her real income and is not entitled to any relief from this Court. In support of his contention, he has stated that the petitioner has not placed on record any document in support of her income. She has independent source of income and as a matter of fact it was the respondent-husband who had furnished the documents including income tax returns of the year 2007 and the two bank entries. Learned counsel has further submitted that the act and conduct of the petitioner in causing cruelty to the respondent has been established in the judgement dated 17.10.2013 of the trial Court whereby the marriage was dissolved. The FAO against the said order is pending adjudication and after hearing the arguments, the final order has been reserved. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. There is merit in the submission of petitioner that she is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of interim maintenance. The only evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Revisional Court is that her income for the year 2007-08 was Rs.1,26,000/- per annum and there are two entries in her bank account in the year 2008. There is no other evidence on record that the respondent is employed or has a regular source of income. The only evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Revisional Court is that her income for the year 2007-08 was Rs.1,26,000/- per annum and there are two entries in her bank account in the year 2008. There is no other evidence on record that the respondent is employed or has a regular source of income. Even assuming that her income was Rs.1,26,000/- in the year 2007-08, it cannot be a ground to deny her interim maintenance inasmuch as the respondent being Additional District Judge was earning Rs.50,000/- in the year 2011. I can also take judicial notice of the fact that the salary of the Additional District Judge at present would be about Rs.1,00,000/- per month. However, the disparity in the income of the respondent and the petitioner should be kept in view while granting interim maintenance. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of trial Court assigning the interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to be paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent shall pay the said amount from the date of the application i.e. 04.06.2009 till date along with the future maintenance. However, the amount paid by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be set off while computing the arrears of the interim maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has not stepped into the witness box in order to delay the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————