JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral):- The petitioner, herein, is the husband of respondent No.1, herein and father of respondent No.2, herein. He has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent No.1, herein. During the pendency of divorce petition, respondent No.1 instituted an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. She averred in the application that they both require Rs. 10,000/- per month, as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.22,000/- as expenses of the proceedings. She also averred that they have no source of income, while the petitioner, herein, has been serving in the Indian Army and is getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. 2. This application was opposed by the petitioner by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the applicant herself (now respondent No.1), has been earning Rs.8,000/- per month from tailoring and embroidery work, while on the contrary, he (petitioner) is mere sepoy in the Indian Army and getting monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, out of which, he is to maintain his two sisters and a brother. Rest of the averments contained in the application were controverted and prayer for dismissal, thereof, was, thus, made. 3. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2013 accepted the application of the respondent No.1 and granted maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month to both the respondents; besides, grant of Rs.10,000/- as expenses of proceedings. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner, who was respondent in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has come up with this revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for dismissal of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, that was filed by respondent No.1, herein, before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the latter has other obligations to maintain his two sisters and a brother, therefore, the maintenance pendente lite granted at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month is on higher side, as also, the expenses of proceedings to the tune of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the respondent No.1, herein, are also on higher side. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the latter has other obligations to maintain his two sisters and a brother, therefore, the maintenance pendente lite granted at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month is on higher side, as also, the expenses of proceedings to the tune of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the respondent No.1, herein, are also on higher side. 6. Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but there is no merit, therein, as according to his own admission, the petitioner, herein, has been earning Rs.12,000/- per month. If the parties had been living together, then this income would have been shared by all the three. So far as, the sisters and brother of the petitioner are concerned, he has no legal obligation to maintain and support them. While on the contrary, he has legal obligation to maintain his wife and son, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, which have been instituted by him before the trial Court. 7. There is nothing on the record that respondent No.1, herein, is trained in any vocation. It is not the case of the petitioner, that she is skilled in any profession. Therefore, it follows, that she has no source of income and, therefore, she was rightly held entitled for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.6,000/-, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, that is to be shared by both the respondents. So, the maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. Expenses of proceedings to the tune of Rs.10,000/- also cannot be held to be on higher side, as she had to engage a counsel, as also, she will have to pay diet money and travelling expenses to her witnesses, which she will have to examine in her defence before the trial Court. 9. There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, that ought to be and, is hereby, upheld and affirmed. 10. Resultantly, the instant revision petition, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------