JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Ved Parkash, who had brought a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking a decree of divorce against Renu Rani, respondent, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, a sum of Rs.3000/- per month has been allowed as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent and a sum of Rs..2500/- has been allowed as litigation expenses. 2. Renu Rani had claimed that she was unable to maintain herself as she had no source of income while her husband had got sufficient income, earning Rs.40,000/- per month by running a business of confectionary and juice shop in the main market. 3. The husband had opposed the prayer claiming that he was running a small juice shop and was earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. It has been also averred that three children, born out of this wedlock, were residing with him and he was also paying a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as rent of the shop. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, has passed the impugned order. 5. I have heard Shri Parminder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a small shopkeeper, who is running a juice shop and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. According to him, he is having the shop on rent and is paying Rs.3000/- per month as rent therefore. According to him, he is having three children with him and has to spend on their daily requirements besides education. According to him, an amount of Rs.3000/- awarded as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent is on a very higher side. 7. The facts that the petitioner has a juice shop and the same is located in the main market are not disputed by the petitioner. His plea that he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be taken as such. Every husband facing application under section 24 of the Act tries to project a very low amount as his income so as to reduce his liability of maintenance pendente lite. His plea that he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be taken as such. Every husband facing application under section 24 of the Act tries to project a very low amount as his income so as to reduce his liability of maintenance pendente lite. There is nothing on the record to even support the plea of the petitioner that he is paying Rs.3000/- per month as rent for the shop in question. 8. With the prices sky rocketing nowadays , a sum of Rs.3000/- per month is not a very big amount. It comes to Rs.100/- per day and a woman can barely feed herself in this amount. 9. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge, Karnal does not seem to have committed any illegality in making the impugned order. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. --------------