ORDER :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Though, notice stands served upon respondents No. 1 & 2, in terms of order dated 12.06.2019, but since, none has come present on their behalf and as such, they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

2. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays therein challenge to order dated 05.03.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan (camp at Paonta Sahib) in CMA No. 13-N/6 of 2019, whereby court below while allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, having been filed by respondents, directed petitioner herein, to pay sum of Rs. 7000/- per month to respondent No. 1, from the date of petition till final disposal of main petition. Apart from above, court below also directed petitioner herein to pay sum of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent No. 1, on account of litigation charges.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that marriage inter se petitioner and respondent No. 1, was solemnized on 29th July, 2010 and out of their wedlock, one daughter was born, i.e. respondent No. 2, but since, certain differences cropped up inter se petitioner and respondent No. 1, she started living separately. Petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, levelling therein allegation of adultery against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, was deserted by petitioner in the month of March, 2013 and her child was born in her matrimonial house. Since, respondent No. 1 as well as her minor daughter have no source of income, they approached learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan, where divorce petition having been filed by petitioner is pending, by way of application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, praying therein to grant maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1, claimed that petitioner receives sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month as salary from Jubiliyan Factory Bhainswal Bhagwanpur, Rurki (UK) by doing a job of Chief Chemist, whereas, she has no source of income and as such, petitioner be directed to pay maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses to her.

4. Aforesaid claim put forth by respondent No. 1, came to be resisted on behalf of petitioner by way of filing reply, wherein he claimed that petitioner never deserted respondent No. 1, rather she of her own volition has been living separately since March, 2011, after birth of her baby. He alleged that he was forced to get the name of her baby incorporated in Panchayat record, but he did not get the name of her child entered in the Panchayat. The matter was challenged up to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, but due to financial constraints, he became helpless.

Learned court below on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, held petitioner herein liable to pay maintenance pendent lite @ Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent No. 1, from the date of filing of the petition till final disposal of main petition. Besides above, court below also held petitioner liable to pay litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent No. 1. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order, granting maintenance pendent lite.

5. Precisely the grouse as has been raised in the instant petition is that court below, while awarding a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 1, failed to take note of the fact that respondents No. 1 & 2, are already in receipt of sum of Rs. 4000/- per month pursuant to order passed by competent court of law in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

6. Mr. Ashok Tyagi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court to peruse the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, contended that since, resp