JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pareek with all his vehemence at his command submitted that the order dated, 30.7.88, passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar, granting interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is bad in law. He submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under section 13 for the declaration that the divorce has already taken place according to the customary rites. That matter is sub-judice. He submitted that the wife has submitted an application under section 9 for the restitution of the conjugal rights. He further submits that earlier also a suit for the restitution of the conjugal rights or the application for the restitution of conjugal rights was submitted. He submits that the first application was dismissed on 10.8.82. He is not in a position to produce the certified copy of the said order or any other relevant document to show on what grounds it was dismissed. Right of restitution of conjugal rights is an inherent right and any party can invoke it. Apart from that it is a due right and the cause of action may differ from time to time. Unless the grounds of refusal are known the dismissal of the earlier application cannot be said to be barred under the law. 3. Mr. Pareek has cited before me the case of Ramesh Chand Dutta v. Smt. Mira, 1989 (1) RLR 529. It is a well settled proposition of law that husband is bound to maintain his wife at any cost and from where he will get the amount which is needed for the maintenance of the wife is not arguable particularly when wife has been considered as a weaker section. The question of quantum may be arguable for the purpose of providing good maintenance or reasonable maintenance then it is necessary to determine the income of the husband. However, when a meagre maintenance, which may not be in an ordinary sense sufficient for the maintenance of the wife, has to be provided then it is (sic not) to be ascertained at to what is the real in come of the husband. Apart from that the burden lies on the husband to dispute that he is not in a position to maintain his wife. Ordinarily it is presumed that one who his married will have to maintain his wife unless otherwise proved. 4. Mr. Apart from that the burden lies on the husband to dispute that he is not in a position to maintain his wife. Ordinarily it is presumed that one who his married will have to maintain his wife unless otherwise proved. 4. Mr. Pareek has also cited before me the case of Kishnan v. Gulab, ( 1988 (1) RLR 143 ) . The proposition laid down by their Lordships in the cases cited by Mr. Pareek is not disputed. In the instant case, a meagre sum of Rs. 200/- has been awarded for the maintenance of wife and three children. There cannot be any dispute about the meagreness and, in fact it is not possible to maintain three children and the wife with this meagre amount. In such circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error in this case. 5. The revision petition is rejected. 6. No order as to costs.Revision rejected. *******