JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Pankaj Sharma, the husband has questioned the order dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the application of Ms. Monu Sharma, the wife -respondent has been allowed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to Ms. Monu Sharma for maintenance of his daughter from the date of the order. 2. The proceedings in which the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956(for short ‘the Act’) has been filed by Ms. Monu Sharma, is a petition for decree of divorce under section 13 of the Act. Pankaj Sharma has sought the decree inter-alia on the ground of cruelty. She has claimed that she has been dragged into litigation and that she does not have any money to fight this litigation and maintain her child and has prayed for maintenance. 3. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar had found that the wife herself is earning as she is in service. According to him, she has enough income to spend on the litigation and maintain herself. However, he has found that the responsibility to maintain the only child of the parties is on both the parties and, therefore, a sum of Rs.2000/- has been allowed as maintenance for the daughter. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Pankaj Sharma has brought this revision-petition. 5. I have heard Mr. G.S. Sawhney, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has contended that though both the parties are in service, yet the salary which is received by Ms. Monu Sharma is more than the salary of the petitioner. According to him, the husband has his mother, sisters and other members of the family to maintain them and, therefore, he has been unreasonably burdened with Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance for the daughter. 7. Even if the income of the wife is more than that of the husband, the husband cannot shirk responsibility of maintaining his child. The amount of Rs.2000/- is a petty amount considering the present day prices of everything in the market. The carry home salary of the petitioner is Rs.14223/-. The amount of Rs.4000/-, Rs.2000/- contributed by the father and Rs.2000/- by the wife, is a very small amount for the maintenance and education of a child. The amount of Rs.2000/- is a petty amount considering the present day prices of everything in the market. The carry home salary of the petitioner is Rs.14223/-. The amount of Rs.4000/-, Rs.2000/- contributed by the father and Rs.2000/- by the wife, is a very small amount for the maintenance and education of a child. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently the revision petition is dismissed. ---------------