JUDGMENT 1. - This is a civil miscellaneous first appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated September 10, 1974 in a petition for judicial separation under section 14 of the Act. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant moved a petition under section 10 of the Act for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion by the respondent. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent moved an application under section 24 of the Act for fixation of maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings and also claimed expenses for the litigation. The learned District Judge, after evidence, fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem and allowed Rs. 400/-. as expenses for legal proceedings. It is against this order that the appellant husband has come up to this court in appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration the fact that there was an agricultural property belonging to the joint Hindu family. He has also taken into consideration that there are three houses belonging to the joint family having the rental income of not less than Rs. 300- per mensem, according to the non-petitioner. 5. I have gone through the statement of Smt. Krishna Devi, the respondent, the statement of her brother Laxminarain, the statement of the petitioner Sita Ram, and the statement of petitioner's father Gopi Chand. I have also gone through the affidavit of the petitioner Sita Ram. Having gone through the above evidence, it appears that the petitioner Sita Ram, at the time of his deposition, was under training for Chartered Accountancy and he got a stipend of Rs. 200,- per mensem from Dhadha and Company and Rs. 50, - as conveyance allowance. It is further admitted by the petitioner himself that he owns 11 Bighas of agricultural land. According to the petitioner, no profit is derived from the agricultural land, but that statement does not appear to he correct. It is true that this agricultural land must have been cultivated by hired labourers, but even then it can safely be said that the 11 Bighas of agricultural land must be yielding at least income of Rs. According to the petitioner, no profit is derived from the agricultural land, but that statement does not appear to he correct. It is true that this agricultural land must have been cultivated by hired labourers, but even then it can safely be said that the 11 Bighas of agricultural land must be yielding at least income of Rs. 2,000,- per annum. It further appears from his affidavit that he has got share in joint family property in one house yielding Rs. 25/- per mensem. It is, however, not clear as to what is the share of the petitioner in this joint family property. He has further admitted that some part of house No. 3704 is joint family property, but he has further stated that it yields no income. The respondent Krishna Devi and his brother Laxminarain were not able to give any definite statement as to the exact amount of monthly income earned by the petitioner Sita Ram. Section 24 of the Act lays down that in arriving at the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid by one spouse to the another, the court must have regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. In the present case, so far as the respondent is concerned, there is no satisfactory proof that she has got any source of income. In view of the income of the appellant, which I assess at Rs. 425/-per mensem, the respondent is generally entitled to one-fifth of the husband's income, which comes to Its. 85/- per month. As regards costs of the litigation, the amount of Rs. 4001/- appears to be excessive inasmuch as the main petition under section 10 of the Act has been dismissed in default on April 23, 1976. I, therefore, reduce the amount of expenses from Rs. 400/- to 200/-. 6. In the result, I allow the appeal in part, and modify the order passed by the learned District Judge by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 125,- to Rs. 85/- per month, and the amount of litigation expenses from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 200/-. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******