ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 2-2-2013 passed on IA No. 1 in M.C. No. 100 of 2010. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The relationship of parties is not in dispute. Due to certain marital discard the petitioner herein has instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') seeking dissolution of the marriage in the said proceedings. The respondent herein has filed application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has ordered payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by this is before this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the petition papers including order impugned herein. 3. The Court below while taking note of the prayer made by the respondent herein seeking for maintenance has taken into consideration the properties owned by the family of the petitioner and in that line has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is bound to pay maintenance in a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 8,000/-, though in the operative portion it has been indicated that amount of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance and Rs. 8,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner would contend that the Court below was not justified in taking into consideration the properties owned by the joint family. In that regard it is his contention that petitioner is working as driver of a truck wherein water is supplied and due to loss of business he has no income. It is further contended that the petitioner has studied only upto 8th Standard while the respondent has completed her BBM and is capable of earning. Hence, he contends that maintenance ordered is not justified. 5. The learned Counsel for respondent however, seeks to sustain the order passed by the Court below. It is contended that the Court below after taking into consideration all aspects as also details of the properties owned, has awarded meager compensation, which does not call for interference. 6. Hence, he contends that maintenance ordered is not justified. 5. The learned Counsel for respondent however, seeks to sustain the order passed by the Court below. It is contended that the Court below after taking into consideration all aspects as also details of the properties owned, has awarded meager compensation, which does not call for interference. 6. In order to take note of the contentions as put forth by the learned Counsel for petitioner, no document is produced to indicate that the respondent though is a BBM graduate is presently employed and has sufficient income to maintain herself. In that view the mere qualification being possessed by the respondent is not alone sufficient. The fact that avocation of the petitioner and the income was same prior to the misunderstanding being developed between the petitioner and the respondent, cannot be lost sight. In that direction when the respondent has sought for the minimum maintenance for survival during the pendency of the proceedings certainly the Court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- would be payable by the petitioner. When such conclusion has been reached, mentioning it as Rs. 5,000/- per month in the operative portion, would not be justified and appears to be an error. 7. Therefore, in the circumstances, when the Court below has arrived at a conclusion with regard to maintenance and there is no document available on record to come to a conclusion that the respondent would be able to maintain herself without seeking maintenance from the petitioner, in my opinion, the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- would not call for interference. However, since there is error in the operative portion of the order impugned, it stands modified to hold that the petitioner shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and the litigation expenses of Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent. While calculating the said amount for payment, the amount as paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall also be taken into consideration and balance shall be paid in accordance with law. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.