M. K. Sharma, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is directed against theorder dated 4. 11. 1995 passed by Shri A. K. Pathak, Additional District Judge,dismissing the application of the petitioner for variation of the maintenanceallowance in H. M. A Case No. 244/1991. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the petition before the Additional District Judge seekingdivorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty. The respondent filed anapplication under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenancependente lite and litigation expenses. By order dated 25. 1. 1994, the Trial Court waspleased to grant maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 500. 00 per month with effectfrom 14. 8. 1992, the date on which the aforesaid application was filed and alsolitigation expenses at Rs. 1,100. 00. The petitioner moved a revision petition beforethis Court which was numbered as Revision Petition No. 232/1994 and by orderdated 20. 9. 1994, this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the aforesaidrevision petition. ( 3 ) ON 10/07/1995, the petitioner filed an application for variation of the orderdated 14. 8. 1992 passed by the Trial Court on the allegation that as lock-out has beendeclared in the "sunday Mail" where the petitioner has been working as a Clerk/operator, the amount of maintenance pendente lite is required to be varied to theextent that the petitioner be granted liberty not to make payment from May, 1995onwards to the respondent. The ground taken in the aforesaid application was thatthe "sunday Mail" where the petitioner was working is lying closed on the accountof the aforesaid lock-out since April, 1995 and, therefore, his salary is not being paidby his employer. In support of his application, the petitioner also placed on recordthe notice declaring lock-out in the aforesaid establishment. ( 4 ) THE respondent opposed the aforesaid application stating, inter alia, thatthe petitioner had defaulted in making payment on earlier occasions despite orderspassed by this Court on 9. 3. 1994. She further alleged that the petitioner owns a plotat Tekhand Village, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi, and is deriving a rental income ofrs. l,000. 00 per month and that he has also received his share from the sale ofancestral property worth several lakhs. ( 5 ) THE Additional District Judge, Delhi after hearing the parties by his orderdated 4. 11. 1995 held that since maintenance amount was only a sum of Rs. 500. l,000. 00 per month and that he has also received his share from the sale ofancestral property worth several lakhs. ( 5 ) THE Additional District Judge, Delhi after hearing the parties by his orderdated 4. 11. 1995 held that since maintenance amount was only a sum of Rs. 500. 00,there was no force in the application filed by the petitioner and accordingly hedismissed the same, hence the present revision petition. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me thatin view of the closure of the establishment where the petitioner was working,because of the lock-out declared in the said establishment, the petitioner is not beingpaid his salary and, therefore, without any means to pay the maintenance amount. Since he has no other source of income, the order directing for payment of Rs. 500. 00 per month towards maintenance pendente lite requires to be varied. On theother hand Mr. H. P. Ohri appearing as Attorney for the respondent submittedbefore me that although there has been a lock-out in the establishment where thepetitioner was working, he has other source of income like rental income and thathe has received a share from sale of his ancestral property worth several lakhs. ( 7 ) HAVING considered the submissions of the parties and on going through therecords, I find that the fact of lock-out in the establishment where the petitioner hasbeen working is more or less admitted. The Trial Court while directing by orderdated 14. 8. 1992 to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month took into consideration the factum of the petitioner beingemployed at "sunday Mail" where from he was deriving an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and on the basis thereof, granted maintenance at Rs. 500. 00 per monthto the wife towards the maintenance pendente lite. Now, in view of the lock-out inthe establishment, there is definitely a change of situation and circumstances. Sincethe petitioner, at the moment, is deprived of the aforesaid income of Rs. 3,000. 00 permonth from the office where he has been working, the relief sought for by thepetitioner requires consideration. The learned Trial Court while considering thematter regarding variation in the amount of maintenance allowance pendente liteto be paid to the respondent found that the petitioner has a rental income of Rs. l,000. 3,000. 00 permonth from the office where he has been working, the relief sought for by thepetitioner requires consideration. The learned Trial Court while considering thematter regarding variation in the amount of maintenance allowance pendente liteto be paid to the respondent found that the petitioner has a rental income of Rs. l,000. 00 per month besides receiving certain amount as his share from the sale ofancestral property worth several lakhs. The learned Trial Court, however rejectedthe prayer for varying the amount of maintenance allowance to be paid to the wifeon the ground that the petitioner being an able bodied man is able to earn at leasta sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 by either working on part-time basis or otherwise for hissurvival. But the fact remains that there is no evidence on record to show that thepetitioner in fact is earning such an amount of Rs. 2,000. 00 per month at the moment. ( 8 ) ON consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am ofthe opinion, that in view of the changed circumstances and taking into consideration the fact of reduction in the earning of the petition on account of the lock-outin the establishment, the amount granted towards the maintenance allowancependente lite to the wife requires variation, at least, for the present. Since there isa finding on the Trial Court that the petitioner has a rental income of Rs. 1,000. 00per month and also has received some amount as his share from the sale of ancestralproperty worth several lakhs, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and appopriate to vary the amount of maintenanceallowance pendente lite to the wife and grant Rs. 350. 00 to the wile (respondent)towards maintenance allowance pendente lite. The payment of the said amountwould be effective from the month of February, 1996 till further orders passed inthis regard. The petitioner shall, however, pay Rs. 500. 00 per month to the wifetowards the maintenance allowance pendente lite upto 31. 1. 1996. It is further madeclear that the fixation of maintenance allowance pendente lite be paid to the wife atrs. 350. 00, in view of the fact of lock-out in the establishment in which the petitionerwas working, and decrease in the earning of the petitioner. 500. 00 per month to the wifetowards the maintenance allowance pendente lite upto 31. 1. 1996. It is further madeclear that the fixation of maintenance allowance pendente lite be paid to the wife atrs. 350. 00, in view of the fact of lock-out in the establishment in which the petitionerwas working, and decrease in the earning of the petitioner. It is thus made clear that,in case the aforesaid lock-out is lifted or there is increase in the earning of thepetitioner, the respondent shall be at liberty to file an application before the Trialcourt, who on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case would beentitled to increase the rate of maintenance allowance pendent" lite to be paid to thewife as deemed fit and proper. ( 9 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, but,without any costs.