JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Sonia has filed the instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal on application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). 2. Divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent-husband against the petitioner-wife was allowed ex parte and their marriage was dissolved by ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.04.2010. The petitioner moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) on 10.11.2010 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.04.2010. During pendency of the said application, the petitioner claimed maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses by moving application under Section 24 of the Act, alleging that she has no source of income whereas respondent-husband being agriculturist is earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. 3. The respondent-husband opposed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 24 of the Act and pleaded that in the meantime, after waiting for six months after ex parte decree of divorce, the respondent had remarried with Chanchal on 08.10.2010 (before filing of the application by the petitioner) and said Chanchal has also brought a female child with her, born from her previous husband. The respondent alleged that he has no agricultural land. He is casual driver earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The petitioner-wife is also earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing private job at STD booth. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 granted Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner but declined to grant any maintenance pendente lite. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed this revision petition, seeing maintenance pendente lite as well. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent as per his own version is earning Rs.4,500/- per month by working as casual driver, but in fact his income is much more than the amount pleaded by him and therefore, the petitioner should be awarded suitable maintenance pendente lite. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that respondent has to maintain himself, his second wife Chanchal and latter’s daughter from her previous husband. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that respondent has to maintain himself, his second wife Chanchal and latter’s daughter from her previous husband. 8. There is nothing on record to depict that the respondent has any agricultural income or owns any agricultural land. At the same time, there is nothing on record to depict that the petitioner is having any income. The respondent as per his own version is working as casual driver and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. However, income of a driver is much more than the amount pleaded by the respondent. 9. Keeping in view the same and all other circumstances of the case as pleaded by both parties, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent should be directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) per month as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act. Impugned order Annexure P-1 of the trial Court declining to grant any maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly the instant revision is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.11.000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) ordered to be paid by the trial court vide impugned order. ------------