JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.Pawan Kumar Shrivastava. 2. The present revision is directed against the order dated 4.4.1996. 3. Applicant Srnt. Maya Shrivastava is the defendant in the case filed by her husband Manoj Kumar Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking relief of divorce. In the said suit proceedings an application Under Section 24 of the Act was moved by the present applicant for grant of maintenance. The application was rejected by the Court below, where against the present revision is filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court below has committed error in passing the impugned order as the agricultural property is a joint property succeeded from his father arid as such the same could not fall within the category of words "independent income" as used in Section 24 of the Act. Secondly, the Court has also taken into consideration the character of the applicant (wife) which is neither subject matter of the application nor it could, have been as the same relates to the merit of the suit. 5. The Court below has recorded the finding on the basis of the income certificates that the income of the wife i.e. present applicant is more than that of her husband. This finding is based on evidence. It is not the case of the applicant- wife that the Court below committed material irregularity in taking into consideration certain evidence or committed any material irregularity or illegality in exercising the jurisdiction while refusing to grant maintenance. 6. So far as interpretation of word "independent income" is concerned, that means that the person must have the income in his or her own right and not that he/ she may be made dependent on the income of some other members of the family or relations. Here it is not denied that the applicant-wife had the share in the agriculture holdings. Here it is not denied that the applicant-wife had the share in the agriculture holdings. First submission advanced by the learned Counsel fails as the proceedings Under Section 24 of the Act are the proceedings of summary nature and the object is ad hoc and the duration is temporary and in such a situation, High Court normally is not supposed to interfere with under this provision in revision unless the requirement of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is satisfied and the interference is irresistible in law. The scope and the ambit of the revision is not comprehensive as of an appeal. Re-assessment of the evidence is not the scope. It is not a case where it could be said that Court below -has not properly appreciated and discussed the evidence existing on the record. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that: the conduct of the applicant-wife is taken into consideration which is the subject: matter of the suit filed Under Section 13 of the Act and while taking into consideration this fact, the Court has committed illegality and material irregularity. Of course in the last paragraph it has been taken.into consideration, but it is not the matter that this fact by itself is the foundation of the impugned order. The clear finding of fact has been recorded that the income of the wife is more than the income of the husband. 7. In view of above, I do not find it a case worth interference by this Court u /Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision-application is accordingly rejected.