I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court wherein petitioner's claim under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses has been negatived by the Lower Court on the ground that the respondent husband is not having any independent income and on the contrary the petitioner is earning Rs. 250.00 per month from the running of a parlour at Patiala. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their respective claims to find that the trial Court has completely distorted the evidence of the petitioner wife. For holding that she is earning Rs. 250.00 per month from the running of a parlour it has only picked up one sentence from the affidavit filed by her. In the affidavit she has very well explained that as a matter of fact she is having no income from this parlour and is actually running in a loss and has not been able to repay the instalments due to the bank from which she had raised the loan for establishing this parlour. Besides this I also find that the Court has not adverted to the evidence of Gurbachan Singh, Jasbir Kaur, Harjit Singh and Jagdish Singh whose affidavits have been produced by the petitioner in support of her claim. In view of that I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. The same is thus set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for going into the matter afresh in the light of the evidence which the parties have already produced or may choose to produce. I pass no order as to costs. Revision allowed.;