JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J (Oral): - Husband-Kuldip Singh has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing order dated 15.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, thereby disposing of application moved by respondent-wife Rajinder Kaur under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (in short, the Act). Petitioner has filed filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent. Respondent moved application Annexure P-1 under Section 24 of the Act alleging that she has no source of income to maintain herself, whereas petitioner-husband is employed as Lecturer (Commerce) in Government Senior Secondary School and is drawing salary of Rs.36,920/- per month and also earning more than Rs.15000/- per month by tuition work. 2. Petitioner-husband in his reply Annexure P-2 admitted that he is working as Lecturer (Commerce), but denied his salary of Rs.36,920 per month and also denied income of Rs.15000/- per month by tuition work. The petitioner, however, admitted that his gross salary is Rs.36,920, but pleaded that out of it, there is deduction of Rs.4,000/- per month towards GPF, Rs.60/- towards GIS and Rs.2,500/- towards income tax and thus his net carry home salary is Rs.30,360/- per month only. It was also alleged that Deepinder Singh, son of the parties, is studying in Chandigarh and the petitioner has to bear his expenses of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Various other pleas were also raised. 3. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 15.04.2010 directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application Annexure P-1 and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed the instant revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is spending Rs.10,000/- on the education of the son who is studying in MBA. It was also contended that the petitioner himself is residing in rented accommodation, whereas the respondent-wife is residing in the matrimonial home. On the basis of the same contentions raised at the time of motion hearing, notice of motion was issued. 6. Learned counsel for respondent has, however, pointed out that Deepinder Singh son of the parties is doing job in DELL company at Mohali as mentioned by the petitioner-husband himself in his anticipatory bail application Annexure R-2. On the basis of the same contentions raised at the time of motion hearing, notice of motion was issued. 6. Learned counsel for respondent has, however, pointed out that Deepinder Singh son of the parties is doing job in DELL company at Mohali as mentioned by the petitioner-husband himself in his anticipatory bail application Annexure R-2. It was thus contended that the petitioner is not spending any amount on the education of the son. Learned counsel for respondent also submitted that the respondent is residing on ground floor of the matrimonial home and the petitioner is also residing in the said house itself on first floor. It was also pointed out by counsel for the respondent that as per salary certificate Annexure R-3, gross salary of respondent now is Rs.41,608/- and carry home salary, after deduction of Rs.4,000/- as GPF, Rs.60/- towards GIS and Rs.1,500/- towards income tax, is Rs.36,048/- per month. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Prima facie there is nothing on record to depict that the petitioner is spending any amount on the education of the son. On the contrary, as per petitioner’s own assertion in his application for anticipatory bail, son of the parties is doing job in a company at Mohali. As regards rented accommodation in which the petitioner was allegedly residing, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is residing in the matrimonial home although allegedly in one room only. Income of the petitioner is also handsome because amount of Rs.4,000/- towards GPF being deducted from his salary is also part of his income and saving. Thus after deducting income tax, the petitioner’s income is above Rs.40,000/- per month. Consequently maintenance pendente lite of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive. 8. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has intentionally filed the divorce petition at Ludhiana to harass the respondent although both the parties are residing in Sunam, District Sangrur and therefore, if the petition for divorce had been filed at Sangrur, it would have been convenient for both the parties. It also demonstrates malafide of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court. It also demonstrates malafide of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court. Amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial court cannot be said to be excessive, keeping in view the income of the petitioner-husband. The revision petition is accordingly found to be without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. --------------------