Darshan Singh, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 18000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of application and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-wife is an educated person. She was running a boutique at Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar under the name and style Parinaz Boutique and was having sufficient income to maintain herself. He contended that respondent-wife has even posted the advertisement on the facebook. Thus, she is professional. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has observed that respondent-wife has responsibility to maintain the children, whereas a separate application has been filed under Section 26 of the Act for grant of maintenance to the children. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is illegal.
(3.) I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.;