Mr. Darshan Singh, J.: (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 petitionerhusband 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 respondentwife 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.

4. The