JUDGMENT 1. - This is a civil miscellaneous appeal by the appellant Vijay Kumar against the order of the District Judge, Udaipur dated 1.2.1975 directing the appellant to pay to his wife respondent No. 1 Mst. Pushpa Rs. 1,200/- as arrears of maintenance up to the date of the order and Rs. 100/- per month till the disposal of the petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The wife Mst. Pushpa field a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The petitioner Mst. Pushpa also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance and expenses uses of the proceeding on the ground that she has no independent means of income sufficient to melt the expenses of litigation and to support herself. It was also alleged that her husband's income was about Rs. 1,500/- per month. 3. This application for interim Maintenance was opposed the appellant who pleaded that his monthly income was only Rs. 300/-. It was also pleaded that the wife was a teacher in Gyan Mandir and was draw a salary of Rs. 125/- per month. Both the parties in support of their respective allegations filed affidavits. The learned District Judge did not put reliance on the affidavit of the husband on the ground that no source of knowledge was disclosed in it. The learned District Judge, relying upon the affidavit of the wife, allowed tie application and granted interim maintenance and expenses for litigation as mentioned above. It is against this order that the husband Vijay Kumar has filed this appeal. 4. The relevant provision of law for grant of interim maintenance is Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That section lays down that Whenever it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly allowance during the proceeding such sum as having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. It is thus clear that in arriving at the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid one spouse to another, the Court must have regard to the petitioner's o Income and the income of the respondent.In the present care it appears from the affidavit of the Wife Mst. Pushpa that she has no independent income. The allegation her husband that she was an employee as a teacher in Gayan Mandir and drawing Rs. 125/- per month as salary, was not found to correct. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant this appeal is that monthly maintenance at Rs. 100/- p.m. is excessive inasmuch as the monthly income of the husband is not more that Rs. 300/- per month. The petitioner in her affidavit has alleged that her husband is running a scooter workshop and is also carrying cloth business in the city of Indore. The court in such cases has wine discretion but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and after going through the affidavits of the parties, it cannot be said in present case that the court below did not exercise its discretion judiciously, specially in view of the cost of living prevailing at present. A maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- in the circumstances of the cannot be regarded as excessive. 6. There is no force in this appeal and is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******