JUDGMENT 1. - Attempts were made by the Court to see that the settlement is arrived at between the parties. Husband and wife both remained present today. Husband has refused to settle the matter. 2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-husband against the interlocutory order passed by learned trial Judge, awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month to the respondent-wife. 3. There is specific ban under Section 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code. for exercising revisional jurisdiction amongst the interlocutory orders. 4. The petitioner tried to contend that the respondent-wife is earning as she is serving as Librarian and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance and learned trial Judge ought not to have awarded maintenance. This argument cannot be accepted as deserted-wife cannot be expected to live without any maintenance. For maintaining herself, if she is serving and getting something, that will not entitle the husband to say that the wife is not entitled for maintenance. The amount of Rs. 350/- is a meagre amount and if the wife was staying with her husband then the husband was bound to spent not less than Rs. 1,000/- looking to their status. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 350/- is nothing but a very negligible amount which is awarded to the respondent-wife. There is no question of adjusting the amount in case the husband ultimately succeeds in the maintenance application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. I am constrained to observe this as learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this contention. 5. In view of the above, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. Rule discharged. If any interim order was granted, the same stands vacated.Revision dismissed. *******