JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Honey Randhawa (wife) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.04.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon thereby dismissing application moved by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during pendency of divorce petition filed by respondent-husband- Jasbir S. Randhawa under Section 13 of the Act. 2. The petitioner herself alleged that she has income of a little over Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) per month whereas she has to spend Rs.2,00,000/- per month on education of her younger daughter in United States. It was also alleged that respondent-husband is earning several lacs of rupees and also has earning capacity. He also has property worth crores of rupees. 3. Respondent alleged that he has no income whereas the petitioner wife has properties and has lot of income including salary and rental income. 4. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the application of wife under Section 24 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. There is no material on record to depict that the respondent-husband has any income. Respondent is present in the Court and states that he is out of job. In fact, respondent had also filed application under Section 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance from the petitioner-wife but the said application was also dismissed by the Family Court vide separate order of even date Annexure P-15. On the other hand, the petitioner-wife herself admitted that she was getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month besides rental income of Rs.21,800/- per month. In these circumstances, application moved by the wife has been rightly dismissed by the Family Court. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has bank accounts as detailed in paragraph 19(c) of the grounds of revision petition. However, the amount lying in the said bank accounts has not been stated nor there is any material on record to depict that the respondent-husband has any income. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no longer in service. However, there is no material on record to depict that the petitioner is no longer in service. However, the amount lying in the said bank accounts has not been stated nor there is any material on record to depict that the respondent-husband has any income. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no longer in service. However, there is no material on record to depict that the petitioner is no longer in service. Moreover, even then petitioner has rental income of Rs.21,800/- per month whereas there is no material to depict that the respondent has any income at all. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of Family Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ------------------