Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition, is directed, against the Order, dated 10.12.04, rendered by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide which, it accepted the application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which, was filed by Sukhjit Kaur, respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Sukhjit Kaur claimed that she was married to Jaswant Singh, on 13.12.83, at Village Shikar Machhian, District Gurdaspur, according to Sikh religious rites, and a female child, was born, from the wedlock, who was in her custody. It was stated that she was not having any source of income nor did she have movable or immovable property, and, was dependent upon her parents. It was further stated that is handicapped lady, and her right arm, stood broken. It was further stated that her daughters was studying in 1 Oth grade. It was further stated that Jaswant Singh, being a man of means, and serving in the Punjab Cooperative Department, as Inspector, was drawing Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary, and owns 20 acres of land, where from he gets sufficient income. Accordingly, a prayer was made that maintenance pendentelite and litigation expenses be granted. 3. Jaswant Singh, petitioner, put in appearance, and filed reply, wherein he resisted the petition. It was stated that Sukjit Kaur, was a permanent resident of Canada, and, was doing service there. It was further stated that she was earning Rs. 2 lacs per month, and was able to maintain herself, and her minor child. It was denied that she was dependent upon her parents. It was further stated that she herself deserted the respondent, left for Canada and settled there. It was admitted that he was posted as an Inspector, in the Punjab Cooperative Department. It was further stated that after deductions, his total salary per month was Rs. 10,000/-. It was denied that he owned any land, in his name, as stated by Sukhjit Kaur, in her petition. It was further stated that his brother died, in the accident, and he had maintain the wife and minor children of his brother too. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the documents on record, the trial Court, accepted the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by Sukhjit Kaur. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 6. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the documents on record, the trial Court, accepted the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by Sukhjit Kaur. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the Court below did not take into consideration, the factual position, that Sukhjit Kaur was settled in Canada, and was earning sufficient amount, to maintain herself, and, her minor child. He further submitted that she had deserted him, and, as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable, to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The relationship of husband and wife, between the parties, was admitted. It was also not disputed that from this wedlock, a female child, was born, who is in the custody of Sukhjit Kaur. An exparte decree of divorce, was granted, in favour of the petitioner, vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.2003, and the same, was set aside, vide order dated 23.10.03. No doubt, in the reply, it was stated by Jaswant Singh that Sukhjit Kaur, was a permanent resident of Canada, and was earning sufficient amount. No material was produced on record, which could go to prima facie establish that she was earning sufficient amount, so as to enable her, to maintain herself, as also her minor child. It was prima facie establish that she is a handicapped lady. The mere fact that Sukhjit Kaur, is residing in Canada, did not mean that she was earning sufficient amount there. It was the duty of Jaswant Singh, being husband of Sukhjit Kaur, to maintain her and her minor child. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties in the society, and their financial condition, in my considered opinion, the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, rightly granted Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondent No. 1, as maintenance pendente-lite, Rs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties in the society, and their financial condition, in my considered opinion, the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, rightly granted Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondent No. 1, as maintenance pendente-lite, Rs. 1000/- per month, as maintenance pendenielite, to the minor child, from the date of institution of the petition, and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses. The amount of maintenance and litigation expenses, awarded by the Court below, could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, in any manner. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, and warrant no interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227, of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is, thus, liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.