Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Suman has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court). Ludhiana, thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu-Marriage Act (in short - the Act). 2. Respondent Sukhbir Singh has filed divorce petition against the petitioner herein. The petitioner moved application under Section 24 of the Act claiming travelling expenses from the respondent herein for coming from Canada to Ludhiana and going back (to appear as witness), alleging that she is not in a position to bear the said travel expenses. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court by impugned order Annexure P-1. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently referred to the history of the litigation between the parties, but the same is completely irrelevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner is only getting social security benefits of 350 Canadian Dollars per month and therefore, she has no means to incur the travelling expenses from Canada to India and back. 5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In the application moved before the trial court, it was simply alleged that the petitioner is not in a position to bear the travelling expenses. The trial court was, therefore, justified in observing that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of the travelling expenses because she has not stated as to what job she is doing and what is her earning. The application moved before the trial court is completely meritless because the simple plea that the petitioner is not in a position to bear the travelling expenses is not sufficient to make out a case for directing the respondent-husband to pay the travelling expenses. The petitioner was supposed to state in the application if she had any income at all and if so, how much, but the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact in the application and therefore, the trial court was justified in raising adverse inference against the petitioner. The petitioner was supposed to state in the application if she had any income at all and if so, how much, but the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact in the application and therefore, the trial court was justified in raising adverse inference against the petitioner. The trial court rightly observed that the petitioner has not claimed maintenance allowance under Section 24 of the Act and it would show that she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant revision petition, the petitioner has mentioned that she gets social security benefits of 350 Canadian Dollars per month and has no other income. However, no such assertion was made by the petitioner in the application moved before the trial court. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the conduct of the petitioner in prolonging the disposal of the divorce petition has to be noticed. Application under Section 24 of the Act claiming travelling expenses was moved by the petitioner after availing many opportunities for evidence and not when the case was fixed for the first time for her evidence. The respondent was therefore justified in pleading that the application had been filed to only delay the proceedings. It is also apparent from the fact that even the instant revision petition has been filed more than two months after the passing of the impugned order. Thus, the only intention of the petitioner appears to be to delay the disposal of the divorce petition. For the reasons recorded herein above, 1 find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The instant revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.