Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.99 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000.00 per month as maintenance to the opposite party of this revision as also Rs: 5,000.00 as lump sum towards the litigation cost in Matrimonial Case No. 205/96. 2. It was contended before me by the revisionist appearing in person that the learned Court wrongly held that the revisionist was having an income of Rs. 1.00 lac per month from business being run by his family. As a matter of fact, the entire business-concerns were being owned by his father and brother and the revisionist himself was not running independent business of his own. Of course, the revisionist was having a share business earlier, but the share business had been running recently in slump, and therefore, the revisionist was not having a handsome income to pay Rs. 2,000.00 to the opposite party of this revision per month as maintenance. The opposite party has an income of Rs. 3,000.00 per month by teaching in school and she was also doing tuition work and, so she was not entitled to have any maintenance allowance from the revisionist. Moreover, the case is lingering for long and the lower Court committed certain errors of record regarding the statements of the revisionist in his plaint and his rejoinder to the opposite partys application for grant of maintenance. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Principal Judge held that in paragraph 2 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff (revisionist) was doing business from his student life, in Khadi Cloth, and the revisionist has also admitted in his rejoinder to the maintenance application that he was carrying on business of Khadi cloth by dint of his experience. He used-to bring Khadi clothes from Madhubani for distribution to cloth merchants. 4. I find that under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a respondent is entitled to seek maintenance allowance from the plaintiff of matrimonial suit, if he/she has no income to maintain himself/herself. In the instant case, the wife of the revisionist had claimed maintenance allowance under Sec. 24 of the aforesaid Act and she was granted monthly allowance of Rs. 2,000.00 only. A lump sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was granted to her as litigation costs. The revisionist deposited Rs. In the instant case, the wife of the revisionist had claimed maintenance allowance under Sec. 24 of the aforesaid Act and she was granted monthly allowance of Rs. 2,000.00 only. A lump sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was granted to her as litigation costs. The revisionist deposited Rs. 5,000.00 as the litigation cost on 8.7.99 under protest. However, now only Rs. 2,000.00 per month pendente lite is to be paid. Whatever may be the position regarding the income of the revisionist, it was admitted that his family was running various business concerns, even though the revisionist was not having an independent business concern of his own. Even if the revisionist was not having running business of his own, he must have his share in the family business; otherwise, there was no occasion for him to gift air-conditioned car to the opposite party of this revisionist and this fact was not denied by the revisionist. So far as his share-business arid khadi cloth is concerned, though these kinds of business may be having slump, still the revisionist cannot be expected to have no income in order to support his wife, opposite party. Every able-bodied man will have to bear the maintenance of his wife as per the settled principle of law. So, I do not think the learned Family Judge exercised her jurisdiction illegally by granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 per month. A meagre sum of Rs. 2.000.00 per month now-a-days is not such a heavy sum to be branded as exorbitant causing any hardship to the revisionist, his family status as business community having been admitted as stated above. 5. In the result, I do not think, the impugned order calls for any interference by this Court. Hence, this revision is dismissed. 6. However, it is directed that the lower Court shall see to it that the matrimonial case concerned is disposed of as expeditiously as possible.