Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner also filed an application, during the pendency of the said petition, under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance and litigation expenses. The application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 17.04.2014 granting only the maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred this petition in which notice of motion was issued on 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the respondent has put in appearance on 18.11.2014. He admitted before this Court that he owns 35 acres of land and is sowing two crops of wheat and cotton but is not aware as to what is the total out put. Accordingly, he was asked to file an affidavit to disclose his income per year from the agricultural land and other sources. 3. Accordingly, the respondent has filed his affidavit dated 03.12.2014 in which he has alleged that he does not have any other source of income except from the agricultural land and had moved an application dated 25.11.2014 to the Sub-Tehsildar, Kalanwali, District Sirsa for the assessment of his income from the agricultural land. It is further alleged that the said application has been marked to Halqa Patwari who has reported that as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12, the respondent is the owner of 39 acres 3 kanals of land and his income is approximately Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. 4. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that he is irrigating the land from minor canal which is also at the fag end and it is operational only for 15 days in a month. Thus, the land owned by him is not fit for irrigation. It is also alleged in his affidavit that he had to spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards labour, diesel, seeds, pesticides etc. and thus the overall income of the respondent is Rs.7,00,000/- per annum. 5. The petitioner has filed a counter-affidavit to deny the averments made by the respondent and alleged therein that as per jamabandi, the major part of land measuring more than 450 kanals is irrigated by canal and is recorded as 'Nehari'. and thus the overall income of the respondent is Rs.7,00,000/- per annum. 5. The petitioner has filed a counter-affidavit to deny the averments made by the respondent and alleged therein that as per jamabandi, the major part of land measuring more than 450 kanals is irrigated by canal and is recorded as 'Nehari'. She has also alleged that even mother of the respondent owns 50 acres of land. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent is a big land owner. Counsel for the petitioner has also made an allegation that the respondent is living in Mohali and has left the petitioner at the mercy of her parents in the village. She does not have any brother and no source of income. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent has concealed his actual income from the Court as in his application filed under Section 24 of the Act, it is categorically stated by the petitioner that the respondent is living a lavish life, he is in possession of 35 acres of land besides urban property in the shape of showrooms and has an income of more than Rs.25 lacs per annum. This averment made in para No.6 of the application has been though replied by the respondent but there is no specific denial that neither he is having any other property nor he is earning Rs.25 lacs as alleged. 6. Be that as it may, it is presumed that at least, the respondent is earning not less than Rs.12 lacs per annum. Therefore, the respondent who has to maintain himself only, as his mother already own 50 acres of land in the same village, could manage with half of the amount and half of the amount could be given to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and Rs.50,000/- per month is granted towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent is directed to pay the entire amount of arrears to the petitioner within a period of two months and shall also pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses which was not ordered by the trial Court erroneously, though the petitioner has been forced to indulge in this litigation at the instance of the respondent who has filed the divorce petition against her in which she has to engage her Advocate both for the trial Court as well as for this Court.