JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 27.03.2012 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana is under challenge. 2. Petitioner-husband has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the ‘Act’) against his wife Palki-respondent No.1 herein. During pendency of the said divorce petition, the wife of petitioner as well as minor son of the parties Master Raunak @ Yogesh Kapoor (respondent No.2 herein) jointly filed application (Annexure P-3) under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. They alleged that they have no source of income whereas the husband was having income of Rs.80,000/- per month from different sources. 3. Petitioner-husband in his reply Annexure P-4 alleged that the petitioner and respondent No.1-wife had effected compromise dated 06.08.2010 Annexure P-1 according to which all claims of the wife were settled and she also took away her dowry articles and both the parties were to file petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B of the Act and therefore, the wife and the minor son are not entitled to any maintenance. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-5 has awarded maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month each to the wife and minor son payable by the husband-petitioner, besides litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed this revision petition to assail the said order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. At the outset, it has to be noticed that maintenance pendente lite has been awarded from the date of application Annexure P-3 which is dated 08.01.2011. It is stated by counsel for the parties that divorce petition filed by the husband has since been dismissed as withdrawn on 01.08.2012. The dispute for maintenance pendente lite, therefore, relates to period of a little less than 19 months. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of compromise Annexure P-1, respondents are not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner because all their claims had been settled. 8. Irrespective of factum and validity of alleged compromise Annexure P-1, the petitioner cannot deny maintenance to the minor son respondent No.2. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of compromise Annexure P-1, respondents are not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner because all their claims had been settled. 8. Irrespective of factum and validity of alleged compromise Annexure P-1, the petitioner cannot deny maintenance to the minor son respondent No.2. So the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner on the basis alleged compromise does not affect the right of minor son-respondent No.2 to receive maintenance pendente lite from the petitioner. 9. As regards maintenance pendente lite to respondent No.1-wife, her counsel stated that alleged compromise Annexure P-1 has been denied by the wife. The divorce petition has since been dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently the alleged compromise Annexure P-1, without having been proved, cannot be relied on to deny maintenance pendente lite to the wife. It may be added that according toe alleged compromise Annexure P-1 also, except allegedly returning the dowry articles of the wife, nothing else was paid to her in lieu of maintenance or otherwise. Consequently on the basis of alleged compromise, the wife can not be deprived of her legal right o claim maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. 10. As regards quantum of maintenance, no argument to dispute the same has been advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner husband in his reply Annexure P-2 did not even allege as to how much income he was having. Consequently adverse inference arises against him. In these circumstances, maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month only for the wife cannot be said to be excessive, particularly keeping in view the sky rocketing prices of all daily necessities these days. 11. Counsel for the petitioner contended that by subsequent order dated 31.03.2012 Annexure P-6 passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife. However, counsel for the petitioner stated that the said order is under challenge at the hands of the petitioner by filing revision petition. Consequently, in the said revision petition, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief regarding payment of double maintenance for the same period pursuant to orders Annexures P-5 and P-6. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is not vitiated on account of subsequent order Annexure P-6. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Consequently, in the said revision petition, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief regarding payment of double maintenance for the same period pursuant to orders Annexures P-5 and P-6. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is not vitiated on account of subsequent order Annexure P-6. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.