Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Adjudication of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) filed by the wife, respondent herein, in a petition under Section 13 of the Act preferred by her for dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1-a) of the Act, forms genesis of this petition, which has been preferred by the husband, petitioner herein. Vide the impugned order, the lower court had fixed ` 7,000/- per month as interim maintenance and ` 2,500/- as litigation expenses. In fixing the maintenance amount, the lower court primarily depended upon the pleadings put forth by the wife in her petition for seeking divorce against her husband wherein stand of the husband in the divorce proceedings that he was poor and was not earning much due to his small land holding that they were living hand to mouth was reproduced. It is claimed that before marriage a very rosy picture was given by the husband that he was engaged in computer business in Sirsa which was a fraudulent projection by them for the purpose of marriage only. 2. The wife in the application under Section 24 of the Act has however claimed that the husband in fact is having huge agricultural land as also more than 30 commercial shops and was having good rental income. 3. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that though the wife had claimed income of her husband to be ` 1 lac per month but there is no material to support such claim. The trial court had fixed interim maintenance of ` 7,000/- per month by taking into account all the factors. This amount is rather very meagre but since there is no application for enhancement of the same from the wife it can not be increased. Even litigation expenses as ` 2,500/- are too low but no application even for increase of the same has been made by the wife. The application by the husband for modification of the said order and for reducing the maintenance amount is clearly misfounded and has no merit in it. Even litigation expenses as ` 2,500/- are too low but no application even for increase of the same has been made by the wife. The application by the husband for modification of the said order and for reducing the maintenance amount is clearly misfounded and has no merit in it. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances mentioned earlier, there is neither any factual nor legal error in the impugned order and affirming the same, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, if during the course of evidence the husband is able to collect material sufficient enough to show his income to be inadequate for making the payment ordered vide the impugned order, he may file an application for modification of the same but till then, he would continue making the payment as per the terms of impugned order.