JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, where by he maintained the quantum of maintenance allowance of the wife at Rs. 80/- P.M. against the husband on the basis that he refused to maintain her. 2. The learned counsel appearing before me urged that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 80/- per month was excessive inasmuch as at the material time when the quantum was fixed Prem Chand was mere student. This argument was also urged before the learned Sessions Judge and it was rejected on the ground that parents of Prem Chand are persons of substance engaged in business. Having regard to the fact that the husband comes from a family of status Rs. 80/- per month cannot be characterised as excessive and much less today when the value of a Rupee is undisputedly low. The question whether the husband can afford to pay the amount or not is essentially a question relating to the financial position of the family and is, therefore, a question of fact. The learned counsel was not able to tell me what Prem Chand was doing today or that there is any circumstance on account of which Prem Chand's financial status has varied. In these circumstances I do not think I shall be justified in interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated December 22, 1969 add with these remarks the revision application fails and is dismissed. *******