JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - The petitioner-husband has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Matrimonial Court, Hoshiarpur. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage during pendency of which the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 for award of maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses. Learned Matrimonial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the application. However, the lower Court did not award litigation expenses. 3. In the application of respondent it was stated that the petitioner is running a printing press and working as a property dealer. His monthly income is stated to be Rs.1 lac. Father of the petitioner is working in the BSNL and his mother is an employee of Mandi Board. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the paper-book. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was no prima facie evidence for supporting the contention that the petitioner was having sufficient income. On the other hand, it is submitted that the respondent-wife is living abroad in United Kingdom and it cannot be said that she is not having sufficient source of income for her maintenance. 5. I am of the view that the mere fact that the respondent-wife is staying in United Kingdom is not a ground for refusing to grant of maintenance pendente lite especially when the respondent’s plea was that she is a student while staying in United Kingdom and that she is not a working hand. She was stated to be living at the mercy of her mother. There is no document placed by the petitioner on record to suggest that the respondent has any source of income. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.12.2011. It is rather stated in the instant revision that father of the respondent-wife had died and she went to her parental house and came to the matrimonial home on 02.01.2012 and went back the next day From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that the petitioner comes from a well off family as both his parents are also working. It could not have been possible to accept the contention that the petitioner is not an earning hand. Being an able bodied man he is bound to maintain his wife. The award of Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente lite, therefore, cannot be termed on the higher side calling interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. No merit. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————