N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) ALL that could be said by the ld. Advocate for the petitioner was that, when the ld. Magistrate who recorded the evidence, had an opportunity of seeing the parties and the witnesses before himself, has in paragraphs 13, 18 and 25 indicated that, there is a possibility of the sons maintaining the petitioners wife, i. e. , the mother, no orde of maintenance could have been passed against the present petitioner-husband. ( 2 ) THE ld. Magistrate decided the Maintenance Application No. 17 of 1993, on 28. 2. 1995 and finally, awarded Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No. 1. The prayer was also for unmarried daughter which has been rejected. No doubt, the present petitioner-husband is a retired Railway employee, and therefore, has considerably less income than what he would have, if he were in service. However, the aforesaid possibility of sons contributing towards the maintenance of the mother itself can be said to be the reason for awarding a meagre sum towards maintenance. ( 3 ) THE ld. Advocate relied upon 1973 Crlj Page 1878 a decision of Supreme Court, where the wife was found to be relatively in affluent circumstances than the husband and. therefore, the rejection of maintenance application was upheld and on the contrary, was found to be an application filed with ulterior motive. That being under the situation, here. the authority does not help the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE aofresaid order of the ld. Magistrate was carried before the ld. Sessions Judge, valsad, at Navsari, by way of Revision Application No. 28 of 1995. That also came to be rejected on 12. 8. 1996, by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge of Camp, at Valsad. ( 5 ) BOTH the Courts below, therefore, have found that the wife has reasons to stay separate and not being able to maintain herself, she is entitled to the order far maintenance. In this background, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same. Hence, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. .