JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.1990 passed by the Tenth Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No. 177 of 89, whereby the learned Judge considering an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 350/- per month to the non-applicant and Rs. 150/- per month for each of the two children, who are in the custody of the mother. Rupees five hundred has also been awarded for the expenses of the case. 2. In a matrimonial proceeding, an application was filed on behalf of the non-applicant who is the wife of the applicant, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the present petitioner has rental income of. Rs. 300/- per month from a house in Manorama Ganj. He has also an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in his name deposited in the Punjab National Bank from which he gets interest. He also works in a Company in Manorama Ganj from which he gets a salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month and he also works part time from which he gets Rs. 300/- per month. As such the income of the petitioner is Rs. 3000/- per month. The wife non-applicant demanded Rs. 1000/-for the expenses of the case, Rs. 500/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 300/- each for the maintenance of the two children. 3. The application was resisted by the present applicant on the ground that the non-applicant has an independent source of income by stitching. The averments about the income and deposit in the Bank have also been denied. According to him he gets only a salary of Rs. 550/- whereas the non-applicants earns Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per day from stitching. 4. After considering the affidavits and the documents on record the learned lower Court has passed the impugned order. Hence this revision. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Gangrade has streneously argued that the Court has erred in arriving at a decision that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 1125/- and he his further argued that even if the income of the applicant it Rs. Hence this revision. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Gangrade has streneously argued that the Court has erred in arriving at a decision that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 1125/- and he his further argued that even if the income of the applicant it Rs. 1125/- an amount more than one-fifth of the income cannot be allowed as maintenance to the wife as has been laid down by this Court in the case of Raghevendra Singh Choudhary, Jabalpur v. Seema Bai (1988 MPLJ, 450). 6. On the other hand Ku. Achala Joshi learned Counsel for the non-applicant argues that the amount awarded to the non-applicant is already inadequate and Court should have granted atleast Rs. 1100/-as maintenance In view of the income of the applicant. In support of her arguments she has cited a Single Bench case of the Bombay High Court wherein irrespective of the income, Rs. 750/- per month awarded as maintenance was held to be proper. 7. In view of the aforesaid arguments and on perusing the record, it appears, that the Court has not erred in any way in arriving at a conclusion that the income of the applicant is Rs. 1125/- per month. While deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Court has to prima facie look to the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. In absence of the exact proof the calculation of the Court is based on the probabilities and unless the Court has taken into consideration some extraneous matters while arriving at a decision or has omitted to consider the relevant record, then only this Court would interfere in the assessment so made. The Court has given detailed reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the income of the applicant is Rs. 1125/- per month. Deposit of Rs. 6000/- in the Bank of India was validly held to be of the applicant in view of the death of the father of the applicant and the applicant being the heir. The interest of that amount has been calculated at Rs. 50/- per month. The ental income and the income from the investment has also been calculated on the basis of the evidence before the Court, which cannot be held to be erroneous. Although new-a-days generally it is not acceptable that a person working in a firm would get only Rs. The interest of that amount has been calculated at Rs. 50/- per month. The ental income and the income from the investment has also been calculated on the basis of the evidence before the Court, which cannot be held to be erroneous. Although new-a-days generally it is not acceptable that a person working in a firm would get only Rs. 550/- per month as salary, which is much less than the minimum wages permissible under the law, still the Court has calculated the income on the basis of the certificate submitted by the applicant at Rs. 550/-. As such the Court has taken a balanced view while assessing the income. 8. Now it has to be seen whether the amount of Rs. 350/- per month granted to the non-applicant is excessive. In this regard it may be observed that a Division Bench in Raghevendra Singh Choudhary v. Seema Bai (supra) has observed that usually maintenance amount is granted at one-fifth of the husband's average net income, but the Court has not laid down any hard and fast rule that it should invariably be so. The Court while passing the order has to keep this principle in mind as a guideline, but the maintenance order has to be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The non-applicant is living in the city of Indore and she has two sons to maintain and also to spend on their education The Court has awarded only Rs, 150/- for each of the sons for maintenance and only Rs. 350/- per month for the maintenance of the wife. It has also been found to be proved that the non-applicant has no income of her own. No evidence has been brought on record that the husband has to maintain other members in the family also from the income which he earns. As such the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and the two sons cannot be held to be excessive. As such I am of the view that the lower Court has rightly exercised its discretion while passing the impugned order and there is no case for interference in that order. 9. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.