JUDGMENT The present revision petition is preferred by the applicant-husband against the order dated 7.9.1990 passed by the District Judge, Seoni, in Civil Suit No. 26-A of 1989 granting maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the non-applicant wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of the suit. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant wife is having 3 acres of land in village Nandwa, from which she is earning near about Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/- per year. This land was purchased by the applicant husband in the name of his wife non-applicant and now she is in possession and in cultivation of the said land. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance pendente lite or litigation expenses. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant wife opposes the submissions of the counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court. His submission is that the alleged lands are not in possession of the non-applicant. She does not know about these lands. She has no income from these lands. She is not having any other source of income and is dependent on her father Mallu. In the trial Court, the applicant as well as the non-applicant and her father Mallu were examined. After assessing the evidence, Use trial Court came to the conclusion that the non-applicant is not in possession of the alleged lands. The applicant has suppressed the fact that he is also having the land in his own name and is in possession thereof. The said lands are 211.3 acres. The applicant is having about Rs. 20,000/- annual income from agricultural lands and Rs. 1,500/- per month from other business. The total annual income, of the applicant was assessed at Rs. 35,000/-. After hearing the parties, I find that there is no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. The alleged 3 acres of land in village Nandwa are 100 Kms. away from the place where the non-applicant is living at present with her father. These lands are adjacent to the lands of the applicant, which he did not disclose in his reply. The submission of the applicant that he has only income of Rs. 400/- per month also seems to be false. Admittedly these lands are purchased by the applicant himself in the name of his wife non-applicant. These lands are adjacent to the lands of the applicant, which he did not disclose in his reply. The submission of the applicant that he has only income of Rs. 400/- per month also seems to be false. Admittedly these lands are purchased by the applicant himself in the name of his wife non-applicant. The non-applicant, in her statement on oath, has stated that she has never seen her alleged lands in village Nandwa. She is also not receiving any income from those lands. She is dependant on her father only. Her version is supported by her father Mullu (A W 2) The applicant in cross-examination has admitted that he is having his own lands about 211.3 acres adjacent to the 3 acres land in the name of his wife. But he has never stated that his wife is in possession of those lands and yielding some income from them. Admittedly he suppressed the fact of his own lands, Even considering the plea of the applicant that he has to feed his two children, mother and father, the annual income of about 35,000/- is sufficient not only to meet the requirement of his family but the alleged Rs. 400/per month awarded as interim maintenance to the non-applicant. Looking to the income of the applicant, the maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 380/- cannot be said to be excessive but rather too meagre. In view of this, no interference in this revision petition is called for. It is, therefore, dismissed, with cost. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-, if certified.