JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 24532.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 5729 of 2012 1. Husband Vikas Madan by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 10.9.2012, Annexure P/3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar thereby directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for minor daughter of the parties from the date of filing of application Annexure P/1 by respondent/wife Aarti under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). 2. Petitioner Vikas Madan has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Act against respondent/wife. During pendency of the divorce petition, wife filed application Annexure P/1 under section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself as well as maintenance pendente lite for minor daughter of the parties residing with her. The wife alleged that the husband has income of more than Rs.12 lacs per annum by working as Commission Agent and is financially sound whereas the wife has no income to sustain herself as well as minor daughter. The husband vide reply Annexure P/2 alleged that wife has sufficient income by way of salary as well as interest income. The husband also alleged that he is working as salaried employee and getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. 3. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 dismissed the application on behalf of the wife regarding maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses claimed by the wife for herself but directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the minor daughter of the parties. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/husband has filed this revision petition. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial court is excessive. 6. I have carefully considered the contention which cannot be accepted. Perusal of income tax return Annexure P/4 of the petitioner/husband reveals that he had salary income of Rs.1,20,000/- and bonus of Rs.18,000/- (per annum). Added to it, he also had short term capital gain income of Rs.39,937/- and interest on amount lying in saving bank account and bank FDR and also other interest income totalling Rs.80,820/-. Perusal of income tax return Annexure P/4 of the petitioner/husband reveals that he had salary income of Rs.1,20,000/- and bonus of Rs.18,000/- (per annum). Added to it, he also had short term capital gain income of Rs.39,937/- and interest on amount lying in saving bank account and bank FDR and also other interest income totalling Rs.80,820/-. His total income is depicted to be Rs.2,58,757/- i.e. exceeding Rs.21,500/- per month. The interest income would also show that the petitioner/husband has handsome amount lying with him in bank and other places. Moreover, income is ordinarily under-estimated in the income tax returns. Moreover, the petitioner did not even plead as to where he is employed and has also not placed on record any salary certificate from the employer. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the minor daughter of the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive. The petitioner husband appears to be financially sound. His daughter is entitled to live with the same status as the petitioner himself. Accordingly, there is no infirmity much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------