JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral):- Shiv Kumar, by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed order dated 29.11.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, thereby directing the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 15.09.2010 – the date of filing application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short – the Act), in addition to Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Petitioner has filed petition under Section 9 of the Act against the respondent. During pendency of the said petition, respondent-wife moved application under Section 24 of the Act alleging that she is residing at her parental home along with two minor daughters, aged threes years and one year, born out of wedlock and she has no source of income, whereas the petitioner-husband is earning Rs.70,000/- per month as rent of 135 rooms and Rs.40,000/- per month from one TATA 407 vehicle and two canters. 3. The petitioner-husband, in his reply, alleged that he has no property in his name nor he has any income. 4. Learned Family Court, vide impugned order Annexure P-1, granted maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the wife, as noticed herein before. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no property or income of his own, and therefore, the amount of maintenance pendente lite is excessive. The contention cannot be accepted. From the impugned order, it appears that there is huge property in the name of parents of the petitioner and the same has been let out and thus, the petitioner’s family is having handsome income. Moreover, the petitioner is supposed to maintain his wife and minor daughters. Even minimum wages of an unskilled labourer in Haryana are around Rs.200/- per day. 7. Keeping in view all these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4,000/- per month for the respondent-wife and two minor daughters cannot be said to be excessive, particularly keeping in view the sky-rocketing prices these days. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is found to be meritless. 7. Keeping in view all these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4,000/- per month for the respondent-wife and two minor daughters cannot be said to be excessive, particularly keeping in view the sky-rocketing prices these days. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is found to be meritless. Impugned order of the Family Court does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because impugned order is not shown to be perverse or illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. ------------------