JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 24621-C-II of 2011 : Application is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : 2. By this common order, I am disposing of two revision petitions i.e. C.R. No. 1119 of 2011 titled Promila vs. Jasvinder Singh and C.R. No. 5036 of 2011 titled Jasvinder Singh vs. Promila because both these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against order dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. 3. Wife Promila has filed divorce petition against her husband Jasvinder Singh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short – the Act). During pendency of the divorce petition, husband moved application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from the wife alleging that the husband is unemployed and has no movable or immovable property and is residing in rented house and has no source of income, whereas the wife is serving as Lecturer (school cadre) in Government School having salary of Rs.35,000/- per month besides tuition income of Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. The wife, in her reply, admitted that she is Teacher in Government School getting salary of Rs.22,500/- per month. She denied any income by way of tuition. It was alleged that husband was Post Graduate and was General Manager drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. He also has share in agricultural land and also owns Tractor, Car and other luxuries of life. He is also able bodied person. 5. Learned trial Judge, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), directed the wife to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the husband from the date of filing of application. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed C. R. No. 1119 of 2011 for dismissal of application of the husband under Section 24 of the Act, whereas husband has filed C. R. No. 5036 of 2011 for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the wife, referring to voters’ list (Annexure P-4) of the year 2009, contended that the husband is residing with his parents and other family members and is not residing in rented accommodation, as alleged by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the wife, referring to voters’ list (Annexure P-4) of the year 2009, contended that the husband is residing with his parents and other family members and is not residing in rented accommodation, as alleged by him. It was also contended on the basis of jamabandi (Annexure A-3) and report of Patwari (Annexure A-2) that the husband has share in agricultural land. It was thus argued that the husband is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite from the wife. It was also submitted that the husband, being able bodied person, has capacity to earn to maintain himself and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance pendente lite from the wife. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Bhupinderjit Kaur vs. Vijay Singh reported as 2003 AIHC 4033 and judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kanchan vs. Kamalendra alias Kamalakar reported as AIR 1992 Bombay 493. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the husband contended that the husband has already sold 01 kanal 07 marlas land out of his total land measuring 06 kanals 07 marlas, by way of an agreement and the remaining share in agricultural land is undivided and has not been given to him. Counsel for the husband also contended that the husband is suffering from nervous breakdown and is getting treatment from PGIMS Rohtak. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. The contentions raised by counsel for the respondents are completely beyond the record. No such pleas were raised in application under Section 24 of the Act. There is also no material on record in support of the aforesaid contentions that the husband has sold part of his land or that he is suffering from nervous breakdown and is getting treatment from PGIMS Rohtak. Moreover, land cannot be sold by way of agreement and can be sold only by way of registered sale deed. 11. On the other hand, husband took false plea in the application that he has no movable or immovable property. The wife produced documents to depict that he has agricultural land. Then the husband has come with the contention that he has sold part of his land. 11. On the other hand, husband took false plea in the application that he has no movable or immovable property. The wife produced documents to depict that he has agricultural land. Then the husband has come with the contention that he has sold part of his land. However, that contention is also untenable being not based on any material on record. Moreover, even according to the plea now taken by the husband, he still has 05 kanals land adjacent to the town of Rohtak having great potential value. The husband also took false plea that he is residing in rented accommodation in Rohtak. The said plea is not supported by any material on record. Rather the husband is residing with his parents and other family members, as depicted by voters’ list of the year 2009, immediately preceding the filing of application dated 23.02.2010 under Section 24 of the Act. Thus, based on false pleas, the husband cannot be granted any maintenance pendente lite. Even otherwise, the husband being able bodied person, can maintain himself. He was earlier said to be employed as General Manager having good salary. In view of judgment in the cases of Smt. Bhupinderjit Kaur (supra) and Smt. Kanchan (supra), the husband is not entitled to claim maintenance from the wife because he is able bodied person. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the husband is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite. Impugned order of the trial court granting maintenance pendente lite to the husband from the wife is thus illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, C.R. No. 1119 of 2011 titled Promila vs. Jasvinder Singh is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court is set aside and application (Annexure P-1) under Section 24 of the Act is dismissed. Consequently, C.R. No. 5036 of 2011 titled Jasvinder Singh vs. Promila for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite is dismissed.