JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 25211-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : 1. Husband Gurmeet Singh has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court. 2. Husband has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short – the Act) against respondent wife Taranjeet Kaur for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife filed application Annexure P-2 under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The wife alleged that she has no source of income, whereas the husband is Proprietor of a big export house i.e. M/s Guru Kirpa Overseas, which is renowned star export house having turn over of several crores of rupees. The husband is leading affluent life having a big spacious house in Ludhiana and the family is having a fleet of cars. Income of the husband by the match-maker before the marriage of the parties was stated to be Rs.1 crore to Rs.5 crores per annum. Accordingly, the wife claimed maintenance pendente lite of Rs.5 lacs per month besides Rs.10 lacs as litigation expenses. 3. The husband, by filing reply Annexure P-3, resisted the application and controverted the averments of wife and pleaded that his income is Rs.25,000/- per month only. 4. Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-4, has directed the husband to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife from the date of application Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has also to maintain his parents, brother and sister, and therefore, the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial court is excessive. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner husband has concealed the material facts and has also made false averments regarding material facts in his reply. The husband alleged that his income is Rs.25,000/- per month only. The wife had to produce income tax return of the husband for assessment year 2010-11 depicting the income of the husband to be Rs.7,31,563/- i.e. almost Rs.61,000/- per month. As against it, the husband alleged his income to be Rs.25,000/- per month only. The husband alleged that his income is Rs.25,000/- per month only. The wife had to produce income tax return of the husband for assessment year 2010-11 depicting the income of the husband to be Rs.7,31,563/- i.e. almost Rs.61,000/- per month. As against it, the husband alleged his income to be Rs.25,000/- per month only. Even in the income tax return, a businessman ordinarily does not depict his true income and rather understates it. 7. The wife specifically pleaded that the husband is sole Proprietor of the aforesaid export house. However, even on query by this Court, counsel for the petitioner husband is unable to state whether the husband is Proprietor or partner of the aforesaid export house or has no concern at all with the same. 8. There is also nothing on record to depict that the petitioner has to maintain his parents as well as brother and sister. 9. It may also be mentioned that the trial court has not awarded litigation expenses to the wife, although the same should have been awarded. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial court to the wife cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction at the instance of the husband in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Moreover, since the petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands, as noticed herein before, for this added reason also, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, being meritless. ---------0.B.S.0------------