Judgment Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of husband challenging the order of trial Court dated 28-11-2013, whereby the trial Court has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as maintenance pendente lite and has awarded the lump sum litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/- and further sum of Rs.150 as transportation charge and ancillary expenses for attending the Court proceeding on each date. In brief, the respondent has filed the suit for divorce in which she had filed an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act which has been allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month ignoring that the respondent has independent source of income. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to keep the respondent and that the trial Court ought to have awarded the maintenance amount from the date of order and not from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the respondent is a housewife and has no source of income. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. keeping in view the entire circumstances of the case and that the respondent is entitled for amount from the date of application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The impugned order of the trial Court reveals that the respondent in the application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act had raised the plea that the petitioner is an employee of Thermal Power Plant and is receiving monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. Nothing has been pointed out by counsel for petitioner to show that such an averment of respondent is incorrect. Though the petitioner has raised the plea that respondent has independent source of income but no cogent material in this regard has been produced to support such a plea. The trial Court considering the relative position of both the parties has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the respondent is having any income from any source. The trial Court has also rightly awarded a sum of Rs. The trial Court considering the relative position of both the parties has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the respondent is having any income from any source. The trial Court has also rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000 in lump sum for litigation expenses and further sum of Rs. 150 as transporting charge and ancillary expenses for attending the Court proceeding on each date. The respondent has also failed to substantiate his plea that the respondent has wrongly been granted maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of application. In the facts of the present case, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. Thus, no ground for interference is made out in exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.