IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2071 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 4, 2011. Arvinder Pal Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Parvinder Kaur ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, Annexure P1 vide which petitioner was directed to pay `4,000/- as maintenance pendente-lite to the respondent-wife besides `10,000/- as litigation expenses during the pendency of the divorce petition. CR No.2071 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) was filed by the present petitioner-husband against respondent-wife. During the pendency of the said petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses, which was contested by the present petitioner. Learned trial Court vide impugned order directed the petitioner to pay `4,000/- as maintenance pendente-lite besides `10,000/- as litigation expenses. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is having no source of income and that he is dependent upon his brother. Plea has also been taken that respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home without any reason. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-wife that petitioner is running a blanket factory at Amritsar and he is having sufficient income and that however, he has intentionally not disclosed his income just to deprive respondent ad-interim maintenance. It is further contended that two children have born out of the wedlock, who are studying and the expenses of their study are being borne by the brother of respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that she is having no source of income to maintain herself and to bear expenses on the education of children. 2 CR No.2071 of 2010 At this stage, plea of petitioner-husband that he is having no income cannot be believed. As per his own admission, his brother is running a business of blanket at Amritsar. He has not disclosed as to what was the profession of his father. Hence, taking into consideration the status of the parties, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Rather in these days of high prices, it would be very difficult for respondent-wife to maintain herself with this meager amount of `4,000/- per month. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3