Laxmi Narain Mittal, J. - (1.) HUSBAND Vijay Bharti has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Matrimonial Court thereby allowing application filed by respondent -wife Monika Bharti under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directing the husband -petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/ - per month as maintenance pendente lite for the respondent wife and three minor children born out of the wedlock between the parties, admittedly residing with respondent, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/ -. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondent.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded is excessive keeping in view the income of the petitioner -husband. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner -husband is admittedly running advertisement agency. Consequently, his stand that his net income is Rs. 10,000/ - per month only cannot be accepted. On the other hand, maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/ - per month has been awarded for four persons i.e. for respondent -wife and three minor children of the parties residing with her. In these circumstances, the said amount of maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be excessive so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In addition to the aforesaid, application by respondent was filed on 18.10.2005 and the divorce petition out of which this revision has arisen has since been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one vide order dated 1.12.2006 as revealed on perusal of the trial court file. Consequently, dispute relates to period of 13½ months only for which no interference is called for by this Court. Resultantly, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the Matrimonial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.;