JUDGMENT M.W. Deo, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 3-5-1990 passed by the lower Court granting ad-interim maintenance pending final decision of the petition for divorce. The lower Court has granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for maintenance of the wife and Rs. 500/- for expenses of litigation. 2. This Court while granting stay order dated 8-12-90 put a condition of Rs. 150/- per month for maintenance to the wife. It if to be seen that after this order while proceedings were going on in the trial Court an order was recorded by the trial Court on 13-8-1991 stating that the wife should be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 751- per month as an ad-hoc arrangement till further orders. It is to be seen that the husband or wife has not felt aggrieved by this order dated 13-8-1991 as none of them came in revision against this order and are continuing with the contest in the trial Court. 3. Against this back drop of the history of the litigation, the contention of the petitioner-husband is that he is not liable to pay anything because the wife is not prepared to come and stay with him and because he himself is not earning anything. There are matters which pertain to appreciation of evidence and are beyond the purview of jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. Broadly speaking the trial Court, on the basis of affidavits, has found prima facie that the petitioner-husband owns land alongwith his father and, therefore, can pay maintenance to the wife. The question of whether the wife has deserted the husband and is not prepared to live with him is in dispute before the trial Court and cannot be considered at this stage to deprive the wife of her right of interim maintenance under Section 24 ibid. It is not shown from the record that the land ii exclusively of the father of the petitioner-husband. It appears that the petitioner-husband is working in the same land and, therefore, must have income from the same. 4. However, coming to the quantum, as stated at the out set while referring to the history of the litigation, it appears that even the wife did not feel aggrieved by the amount of Rs. It appears that the petitioner-husband is working in the same land and, therefore, must have income from the same. 4. However, coming to the quantum, as stated at the out set while referring to the history of the litigation, it appears that even the wife did not feel aggrieved by the amount of Rs. 150/- put as a condition for stay by this Court having been reduced to Rs. 75/- per month by the trial Court as back as in August, 1991. After all interim maintenance is in the shape of a temporary support for the wife after considering the circumstances in which the husband is placed. Bearing the aforesaid facts in mind, it appears that Rs. 100/- per month shall be a just and fair amount of maintenance as a support to the wife as an interim measure under Section 24 ibid. The order regarding payment of expenses of Rs. 500/-. However, does not call for any interference. 5. Thus, the revision petition partly succeeds and it is ordered that the petitioner-husband shall pay Rs. 500/- for expenses as ordered by the trial Court and shall also pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month in place of Rs. 300/- per month as ordered by the trial Court. In the event of partial failure and success of the parties, costs of this revision petition shall be borne as incurred.