JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) 1. Petitioner has taken exception to order dated 23.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge(1), Family Court, Una, H.P., in H.M.A. No. 306 of 2021 in H.M.A. Petition No. 30/2021, whereby petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent @ Rs. 5,000/-per month besides payment of litigation expenses @ Rs. 12,000/- 2. Respondent has filed a petition against petitioner for a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty, which is pending adjudication before learned Additional Principal Judge (1), Family Court, Una, H.P. as H.M.A. Petition No. 30/2021. 3. Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the aforesaid proceedings for grant of maintenance pendente lite. She averred that the petitioner was owner of a Dhaba and was earning more than Rs. 80,000/- per month, but had not been providing any maintenance to respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent was unable to maintain herself as well as her children. She had to depend upon her poor parents for survival. Respondent had no independent source of income. Accordingly, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 20,000 was claimed. 4. In response, petitioner submitted that he was earning only Rs.8,000/-per month. As per petitioner, respondent had landed property in her name and was also working as partner having 50% share in project under the name and style of M/s Standard Agro Project. It was alleged that respondent was earning more than Rs.80,000/-per month. Petitioner also submitted that respondent was being maintained by him and she was being provided with all necessities of life. 5. Learned Trial Court allowed the application of respondent for grant of maintenance pendente lite in terms as noticed above and hence this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned Trial Court has considered the relevant material placed before it. Learned Trial Court relied upon the affidavit placed by the respondent on record in support of her averments. It has also been noticed that petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show that respondent was having independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her children. The findings returned by learned Trial Court cannot be faulted as are found to be borne from the material on record. 8. It has also been noticed that petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show that respondent was having independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her children. The findings returned by learned Trial Court cannot be faulted as are found to be borne from the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the fact of respondent having independent source of income is borne from the documents placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. The arguments so advanced deserved to be rejected for the reason that from perusal of these documents it cannot be inferred that respondent has any earning of her own. Annexure P-6 is jamabandi, whereby ownership of respondent over a piece of barren land measuring 120 sq. mtrs.is recorded. It is not explained that how and in what manner respondent is generating income from such a small piece of land. Similarly, Annexure P-7 is a copy of an agreement executed by respondent on 05.12.2018. This document also does not justify the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing in agreement dated 05.12.2018, which can suggest that respondent was having any earning from the partnership business mentioned therein. 9. Once it is prima-facie shown that the respondent had no independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her children, the liability of the petitioner to maintain her by payment of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act arises. Admittedly, petitioner is owner of a Dhaba. In order to prima-facie convince the Court about his income, petitioner could have placed some tangible material on record, in absence of which, it can be inferred that the monthly income disclosed by the petitioner from his Dhaba is not genuinely correct. 10. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for grant of maintenance pendente lite in case either wife or husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support. The aforesaid provision also provides for grant of necessary expenses for proceedings. In Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and Another, (2003) 10 SCC 228 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relevant statutory consideration under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is that the applicant has no independent income sufficient for support, if such fact exists, then the interim maintenance has to be granted. In Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and Another, (2003) 10 SCC 228 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relevant statutory consideration under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is that the applicant has no independent income sufficient for support, if such fact exists, then the interim maintenance has to be granted. The only discretion thereafter left with the Court is with reference to reasonableness of the amount. 11. In the facts of the instant case, as noticed above, the applicant/wife has no independent source of income. Respondent/husband has not been able to place on record any material to show that the applicant/wife had been earning sufficiently since the date of filing of application till date. It being so, applicant/wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite from respondent/husband. Since, the children of the parties is also being maintained by the applicant/wife, it also will be the relevant consideration in deciding the present application. 12. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dhradun and others, (1997) 7 SCC 7 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “6 The wife says that the husband has not given true account of his assets and income and has rather suppressed the same. Though the wife has not been able to give any specific evidence to support her contention but circumstance show that the husband has not given true state of affairs of his income. He has pleaded that both his wife and his eldest daughter are earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but there is no basis for such an allegation. The fact remains that the wife has no source of income and she is also maintaining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu options & Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain her unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters one of whom is living with wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that section operates in its own field.” 13. In result, there is no merit in the petition and as such, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.