IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.121 of 2007. Date of decision:02.06.2008. Rajesh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumari ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Vijay Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been filed by the husband against the order passed in a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent-wife claiming maintenance pendentelite. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the learned District Judge holds that there is no measure for the earning capacity of the petitioner, who admittedly is a handicapped person, the Court was wrong in granting maintenance at Rs.1000/- per month. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph-5 of the judgment, which says that there is no authentic proof of the income of the husband. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 This submission made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The maintenance has not been granted on pure guess work but taking into consideration the fact that there has been an evasive denial on the part of the petitioner herein that his source of income was from a business of Karyana which he was running. Learned Court notes that although there is no authentic proof of the income, but his answer to the pleadings that he is running a Karyana Shop in the village is evasive. He, therefore, bases the estimation on the income on the basis that even a daily paid labourer is earning Rs.100/- per day. I do not see anything perverse in the finding arrived at by the learned Court below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Records be sent back immediately. June 2, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.