JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Rekha and Master Yash have filed this revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of order dated 19.02.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Narnaul. 2. Respondent Pawan Kumar filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) against his wife Rekha-petitioner No.1 herein. During pendency of the said petition, present petitioners filed application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Petitioner No.2 is minor son of petitioner No.1 and respondent. It was alleged that respondent-husband was having income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month from agricultural land, milk dairy and cement agency whereas the present petitioners have no source of income. The petitioners claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. 3. The respondent-husband denied the averments of the petitioners and pleaded that he was unemployed and had no income whereas petitioner No.1-wife was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tuition work. 4. Learned District Judge, Narnaul vide impugned order dated 19.02.2011 awarded maintenance pendente lite of Rs.1,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to petitioner No.2 w.e.f. the date of application, besides litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this revision petition for enhancement of the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses. 5. Counsel for respondent has today paid to counsel for petitioners costs amount of Rs.1,500/- imposed on 17.02.2012 and also amount of Rs.3,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the main petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband has since been dismissed on 23.11.2011 as submitted by counsel for the petitioners. Consequently the question of maintenance pendente lite is for the period of about seventeen months since 03.06.2010, when application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act was filed, till 23.11.2011 when petition under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed. 8. Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent has huge income from properties and business whereas counsel for respondent contended that the respondent has no income at all. 9. There is no document produced by either side regarding income of either party. However, these days even a casual unskilled labourer earns about Rs.200/- per day. 8. Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent has huge income from properties and business whereas counsel for respondent contended that the respondent has no income at all. 9. There is no document produced by either side regarding income of either party. However, these days even a casual unskilled labourer earns about Rs.200/- per day. Respondent is said to be son of an ex Member of Legislative Assembly. It cannot be said that the respondent does not have any income at all. His income can be presumed to be more than that of a casual unskilled labour. Keeping in view the same as well as keeping in view the sky rocketing prices of all daily necessities these days, the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 10. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent should be directed to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs.2,000/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for petitioner No.2 w.e.f the date of application filed under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act till decision of the petition under Section 9 of the Act, besides litigation expenses of Rs.3,300/-. It is ordered accordingly. With aforesaid modification of impugned order of the trial Court, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------