JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of marriage and divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is the Petitioner in this case against the order of the District Judge allowing the petition of the wife (opposite party) for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. By his order dated 27-9-1980 which is impugned in this revision petition the Court has directed the Petitioner to pay to the opposite party Rs. 35/- per month towards maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding and to pay a further a sum of Rs. 150/- towards litigation expenses. 2. During the pendency of the suit the opposite party filed the petition u/s 24 of the Act stating inter alia that the Petitioner who works as a peon, in the Settlement Office gets a monthly pay of Rs. 325/-. After she was forcibly driven out from the house of the Petitioner since 9-5-1978 he had neglected to maintain her and she had been forced to live with her parents at Patrapda in Sundargarh Town. She asserted that she had no independent source of income to sustain herself. In these circumstances she prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/- during the pendency of the proceeding and a sum of Rs. 200/- as litigation expenses. This petition was supported by an affidavit of the opposite party. The Petitioner in his objection to the application, stated inter alia that no doubt he was serving as a peon in the Settlement Office, Sundargarh, but his monthly pay was Rs. 217/- and not Rs. 325/- as alleged by the opposite party. He further stated that with this meagre amount he maintained himself and his three dependent children with great difficulty and it was not possible for him to give any amount towards maintenance to the opposite party. The objection was not supported by any affidavit. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the application u/s 24 of the Act and the objection thereto passed the order directing payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses as stated above. The Court held that the wife had no independent source of income and taking into consideration the income of the husband per month fixed the quantum of interim maintenance. 3. The Court held that the wife had no independent source of income and taking into consideration the income of the husband per month fixed the quantum of interim maintenance. 3. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Court below erred in directing the Petitioner to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses without holding any enquiry even though a set of draft issues were filed by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not contest the entitlement of the opposite party to interim maintenance. His objection is confined to the quantum of maintenance and litigation expenses fixed by the Court below. As already noticed the Petitioner in his counter to the application filed by the opposite party himself stated that he received a sum of Rs. 217/- as monthly salary as a peon in the Settlement Office at Sundargarh. Even accepting this sum to be the only income of the Petitioner the sum of Rs. 35/- per month can by no conceivable standard be said to be high or excessive. Since the monthly income as stated by the Petitioner was taken as the basis for fixing the quantum of maintenance, want of enquiry cannot be said to have vitiated the order. Similarly, the sum of Rs. 50/- directed by the Court below to be paid towards litigation expenses cannot also be said to be high and excessive. The decision in the case of Bhalu Naik v. Bema Naikani 35 (1969) C.L.T. 532 on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the Petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In that case the application was not supported by affidavit. The decision cannot also be said to have laid down a general proposition that a detailed unequally by framing issues and recording oral evidence is mandatory in all cases. The nature of the enquiry would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In a particular case the trial Court on perusal of the petition and the counter may not feel the necessity for a detailed enquiry in view of the admitted facts. Moreover, the matter of grant of interim maintenance is at the discretion of the Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the Court below exercised his discretion improperly. 4. Moreover, the matter of grant of interim maintenance is at the discretion of the Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the Court below exercised his discretion improperly. 4. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. The revision is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Dismissed