JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:- Petitioner Mandeep Kaur has filed the present civil revisionpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orderdated 08.11.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur,whereby the respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- permonth to the petitioner-wife in an application filed by the petitioner underSection 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). Thepetitioner, therefore, has sought enhancement of maintenance so awarded bythe trial Court under Section 24 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the petition under Section 13 of the Act fordissolution of the marriage by way of a decree of divorce has been filed bythe petitioner-wife. While the aforesaid petition was pending before thematrimonial Court, the petitioner-wife had moved an application underSection 24 of the Act claiming pendent lite maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- permonth along with litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. However, taking intoconsideration the income of respondent-husband, the Court had allowedmaintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application to thepetitioner and her children. In addition to the aforesaid amount ofmaintenance, litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- have also been awarded to thepetitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioneris a house-wife and has no source of income. She has no landed property inher name and at present, she is residing at her parental home. She is dutybound to maintain her children, whereas the respondent-husband is an ablebodied person and he is legally bound to maintain the petitioner-wife andchildren. Apart from being an electrician, the respondent is possessing land,sells milk and is earning a handsome amount of about Rs.50,000/- per month.Therefore, the claimed maintenance and litigation expenses in the applicationunder Section 24 of the Act were liable to be allowed, but the trial Court hasawarded only a meagre amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid application filed under Section 24 of the Act, therespondent-husband has filed his reply, wherein he has stated that though heis working as an electrician, but his monthly income is Rs.6,000/- per monthand he is working with an electricity shop. He has denied that he owns land.He has further pleaded that the petitioner-wife is doing the work of beautyparlourand is earning Rs.5,000/- per month, which is sufficient for hermaintenance. 6. He has denied that he owns land.He has further pleaded that the petitioner-wife is doing the work of beautyparlourand is earning Rs.5,000/- per month, which is sufficient for hermaintenance. 6. It is settled proposition of law that in the application underSection 24 of the Act, the interim maintenance is required to be allowed onthe basis of pleadings on the touchstone of broad probabilities. Since no suchevidence has come on record that the respondent-husband is owner of the landor is selling milk by running a dairy farm, the matrimonial Court has rightlyconsidered his income as Rs.10,000/- per month approximately. Therespondent is stated to be maintaining his parents also. Therefore, consideringhis monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, the Court has fixed a fair maintenance ofRs.4,000/- per month that too from the date of the application, so that thepetitioner-wife and her two children can be maintained. Therefore, this Courtdoes not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the matrimonialCourt. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.11.2017 passed bylearned Additional District Judge, Sangrur is affirmed and the instant civilrevision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 8. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the petition under Section 13 of the Act and the Court shall decide the case on the basis ofevidence so led by the parties without being influenced by this order.