CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders on I. A. I for stay, the petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposed of after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner-Doddavenkatappa filed a M. C. Case in No. 16/86 in the court of the Civil Judge at K. G. F. , seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his second wife Narayanamma. The case appears to have proceeded from about December 1986 till April 1987 and the respondent-wife had not participated at many of the hearings on different dates. However, the petitioner got himself examined as P. W. I in support of his case on 4. 4 1987 and closed his side. On that day the respondent and her counsel remained absent. On the subsequent date, the respondent was represented by a Counsel. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on 18. 5. 1987 two applications were filed one seeking for interim maintenance pendentelite and the other to recall the petitioner to the witness box for the purpose of cross-examination. Application for maintenance was numbered as i. A. III and has been disposed of in the light of the objections filed. ( 4 ) IN the application the wife prayed for rs. 500/- p. m. towards her maintenance and rs. 1,000/- towards Court expenses. It was resisted by the petitioner respondent inter alia contending that she had deliberately kept away from the Court and did not appear on various dates when the case was called and that she wants to protract and delay the proceedings before Court and therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Some of the facts which were not in dispute before the lower Court are that the petitioner was employed in the Excise department as Excise Guard and draws a salary of Rs. 1200/- p. m. He has no doubt stated in his evidence in the mam matrimonial case that he has four children by the first wife whom he is educating. Beyond that material and the undisputed fact of the quantum of salary, there was no material placed before him to sustain his objections. That the respondent-wife had no independent source of income to maintain herself and also to meet the cost of litigation expenses was never disputed. Beyond that material and the undisputed fact of the quantum of salary, there was no material placed before him to sustain his objections. That the respondent-wife had no independent source of income to maintain herself and also to meet the cost of litigation expenses was never disputed. He has only spoken in support of his case in the main petition about his wife living with her parents and his having given some gold jewellary and other ornaments which belonged to his first wife. From that, it does not follow that his second wife may live by selling those ornaments, nor does it follow, the parents are under an obligation to maintain the married daughter. ( 5 ) IN a case like this the spouse who has approached the Court must necessarily demonstrate that the other spouse who has sought maintenance has sufficient means before he can resist demand for maintenance, particularly if the other spouse happens to be the wife. The Legislature has recognised this. Women in the Country are weak and therefore has put them in a slightly better position than the husband. ( 6 ) THOUGH the wife claimed maintenance at rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 1000/- as Court expenses, the Court has not accepted that claim and it has held that she has placed no other material before Court to sustain that demand. It also held that the demand made in the application is excessive and has therefore apparently taken into account the salary of the petitioner- husband and ordered him to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- from the date of the order and legal expenses of Rs. 500/ -. It may look arbitrary, but if it is related to the salary, it will be only l/5th of the salary. Therefore, having regard to the high cost of living anywhere in this country today and low purchasing power of money a sum of Rs. 250/- per month cannot be said to be on the excessive side. The husband, if he is in difficulty must not deprive his wife, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court, of a decent living. The husband is liable to meet the cost of the litigation expenses of his wife by paying it. Now the fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- as Court expenses which is not excessive. ( 7 ) MR. The husband is liable to meet the cost of the litigation expenses of his wife by paying it. Now the fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- as Court expenses which is not excessive. ( 7 ) MR. M. S. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that these applications made belatedly was only with the object of protracting the proceedings and the court ought not to have taken notice of them. In fact the Court has taken note of that as well as her absence which could reasonably be attributed to the fact that the maintenance ordered is not from the date of inception of the proceedings but from the date of pronouncing the order. Therefore, the petitioner-husband has not suffered the rigour of paving maintenance from the very inception of the proceedings. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter it is not a matter in which this Court should interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there is sufficient evidence on record of due application of mind to facts in arriving at the quantum of maintenance and the cost of litigation expenses. For the above reasons, this revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .