1’ t St . .a m. —— 4 •. -— — .Las I. ‘ a. a t 4 a a a M .—e a - — - - — 404 — -x. ±t . —L — - a L • V a— •.a • S ‘: — — VI _at - . dfl I —. b. -— I. -•, •—— a S —: 3 4 • ...Se..... -—S :, • a • _. — S - I— - L — — a v a 4 — t eN ç;.. . . . 7’: •• 3 • — . 0 444 • — - .J. —. • . .S_d - - • 4 “S 5 4 a 3 C 3. .1 I — - I -1 • a — — a. •e • - -: - 0... £ a h-a 1.’ t .0 CI p S •C• . ORD This revision coming on for admission today is taken up for final disposal by consent, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. espondents who are the wife and children of the petition herein have filed a suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs25OO/— per month including the litigation expenses. The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in the Mar1mallappas Coilege Mysore The status of the parties is not in dispute. The fact that t) e respondents are residing separately at Mandya away from the residence of the petitioner is not disputed. The trial Court, after considering the request of the plaintiffs for grant of interim raintenance has allowed the application in part and granted a sum of Rs.5OO/ pr month n favour of the wife and Rs,375/— each in favour of the two dllidren. This or’3er s questIoned on the gro ndthat a residential htse pted t tb let respondsnt by her father wnich is situated at Rajiv Jar at Lysore she e getting a rent of Rs,3,000/— per rionth and that the trial Ccu has Lnored this vital rnaterial .e3e while granting interim maintenance specially to the wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.375/— each per month to the two .dtildren. there-. fore, the chart question that arises for ooneideraticn in this revision is whether the trial Court has erred p.m. in granting a maintenance of Rs.500/eLtO the wife viz., the let respondent. The fact that the let respondent’s father gifted a house in her favour is not in dispute. It is her statement before the Court below that the said house was under look and that recently her mother who is swing at Kyscre has allowed some College boys related to her to stay in the house to look after the house and the is not getting any rent as aich. Having regard to this statement, the trial. Court has pointed out that the defendant has failed to produce any material to rebut this statement and therefore positively held that the 1st respondent has no independent income of xzr own to maintain herself. Though the plaintiffs aesertet before the trial Court that the defendant is b —4— working as a Lecturer and is getting monthly salary at R5.5,440/e., they have not produced any document to tow that the defendant is getting a salary at ks.5440/—. But inview of the adeission made by the defendant that he is working as a Lecturer, the trial Court has taken his inocme at B.s.5,440/—. Stan at this stage, the learned counsel has not disputed the petitioner’s income which is around Rs.5000/—. Having regard to these facts, the trial Court has only determined the interim maintenance pending disposal of the suit. The contentions have tobe considered at the time of trial by the trial. Court and it to is always open to the defendant —petitionerbring to the notice of the trial Court that 1st respondent is not a woman without any meals. These are all the facts which the trial Court has to consider at the trial and detemine the financial status of the parties. The impugned order is not the final determination of the rights of the parties so far as the maintenance is concerned. Therefore, I do not see any illegality in the order as suds, passed by the trial Court whit requires tobe considered in this revision. The revision is therefore dianissed. Sd! Miy JUDGE