Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (ad-hoc) Patiala granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 6000/-. 2. The respondent-wife had claimed that the petitioner is a man of means and is a big landlord and therefore, she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/-. The said petition was contested by the husband-petitioner on the ground that the wire has a source of income as her previous husband had made a payment of Rs. 6 lacs to her at the time of granting of divorce. 3. Learned court below on the basis of affidavit filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the wife was not capable to maintain herself or to defend the case. The Court also found that the payment received by the respondent- wife from the previous husband could not be used to deny her the maintenance pendente I ite and 1 itigation expenses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that the learned court below had not taken into consideration the capacity of the husband to pay and the finance available with the respondent While granting maintenance. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the learned court below has not given any assessment of income and therefore, the order passed cannot be sustained. In support of his contention the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. The District Judge, Dehradun 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 65. He relied on para No. 8 of the said judgment which reads as under: "8. Wife has no fixed abode of residence. She says she is living in Gurudwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand husband has sufficient income and a house to him. Wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be * always there. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be * always there. Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month payable by respondent-husband to the appellant-wife." 5. I have considered the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not feel that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court supports the case of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge. Patiala has rightly come to the conclusion that the payment received by the wife from the previous husband could not absolve the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It may be noticed here that the wife had also stated in her affidavit that the amount received by her from her previous husband was also taken away by the petitioner- husband and also noticed that with regard to the averment of the wife that the petitioner was a big landlord and was earning handsomely the husband petitioner had merely denied the said assertion without giving any details of his income. In view of this, I do not find that there is any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ad-hoc, Patiala granting maintenance and litigation expenses which may call for interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.