VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) IN the present revision petition the challenge is to the order dated 29.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite along with a sum of Rs. 2,200/- as expenses for the proceedings.
(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the proceedings the parties had entered into a compromise and a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was agreed to be given to the respondent wife towards permanent alimony, out of which the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and he was willing to pay the balance amount. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance pendente lite inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the said compromise did not materlise and the parties are backed out from the said compromise. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once the stand of the respondent that respondent that he was working as a school teacher was not believed no maintenance could have been granted. The petitioner is a able-bodied man and amount of Rs. 2,000/- cannot be said to be excessive even if no evidence is brought on record regarding the source of income. Accordingly, no ground is made out which may call for interference by this Court in the impugned order by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.;