JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Jagminder Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to assail order dated 20.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), thereby disposing of application filed by respondent- Sarabjit Kaur under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). 2. Petitioner is husband of the respondent. They have a minor son. Petitioner has filed divorce petition against the respondent under Section 13 of the Act. In the divorce petition, respondent moved application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite for herself as well as for the minor child and also claimed litigation expenses alleging that she has no source of income to maintain herself and the minor child whereas petitioner being healthy and able bodied has sufficient means to maintain them. 3. The petitioner-husband alleged that respondent-wife is herself earning Rs.10000/- per month by stitching work. The petitioner also alleged that he is employed in a private firm getting Rs.3000/- per month as salary. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order awarded Rs.2500/- per month for the respondent and Rs.1500/- per month for the minor child i.e Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and also awarded Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has income of Rs.3000/- per month only and he has given certificate of the employer to this effect and, therefore, maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court is highly excessive. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner represented himself to be owner of a Bakery shop, but it turned out that petitioner was only an employee in the Bakery shop. It was contended that amount awarded by the trial Court is not excessive. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The respondent in her application did not plead any occupation of the petitioner nor pleaded the quantum of income of the petitioner. However in the written statement, the respondent allegedly pleaded that petitioner was employed in the Bakery shop. It was contended that amount awarded by the trial Court is not excessive. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The respondent in her application did not plead any occupation of the petitioner nor pleaded the quantum of income of the petitioner. However in the written statement, the respondent allegedly pleaded that petitioner was employed in the Bakery shop. Even assuming it to be so, income of the petitioner as employee in a Bakery shop would not be so much as to enable him to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent for herself and the minor child, besides maintaining himself also. Interim maintenance granted by the trial Court at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month is excessive keeping in view the occupation and income of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the maintenance pendente lite is reduced to Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.1500/- per month for the respondent and Rs.1000/- per month for the minor child while maintaining the litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- as awarded by the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid modification. --------------------