JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought by Smt. Paramjit Kaur for setting aside the order dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,(for short ‘the Act’) has been dismissed. 2. On Jagroop Singh, the husband of the petitioner, going to jail to serve his sentence in a murder case, the petitioner has brought a petition for decree of divorce under the provisions of section 13 of the Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. She had applied for maintenance pendente-lite under the aforesaid provisions claiming that the respondent has got income of Rs.8000/- per month by way of his share in the agricultural land and also by selling of milk etc. She has claimed that she requires Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite during the pendency of the petition. 3. The application has been opposed by the husband. He has denied having any agricultural land in his name. According to him, while he was confined in jail, he cannot be said to be earning any amount by sale of milk. 4. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has brought this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has got agricultural land and has got good income from the same. He has referred me to para no.8 (iii) of the revision petition in this regard. He has submitted that agricultural land is yielding good income and the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente-lite from the said income. 7. The respondent has denied there being any agricultural land in his name. There is nothing on the record to show that his denial in this regard is false. Para no.8(iii) of the revision petition only shows that family of the respondent has agricultural land, which is giving good income and that the respondent has share in the same. What is the extent of that land, what is the income derived therefrom and what is the share of respondent in the same, are some aspects about which nothing has been averred anywhere by the petitioner. What is the extent of that land, what is the income derived therefrom and what is the share of respondent in the same, are some aspects about which nothing has been averred anywhere by the petitioner. If the respondent has a share in the agricultural land, the relevant revenue record could be placed on the file to prove the same, which was not done by the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the husband-respondent is in jail, undergoing sentence for the offence of murder, it can be understood that he would not be in a position to earn anything and when the husband is not earning anything, he cannot be held liable to pay maintenance pendente-lite to the wife, who is litigating with him for a decree of divorce. 9. The revision petition, therefore, appears to have no merit and is dismissed. ———————