D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) YESTERDAY the matter was taken up and order was passed. After the order was transcribed but before it could be signed, the matter was mentioned today by Mr. D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the revisionist when the record was available in this Court. ( 2 ) BY consent of the parties, the matter was taken up and was treated as on days list. The matter is reheard today. ( 3 ) MR. D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist points out from the Impugned order that the learned trial court has come to a finding that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the wife to sustain the allegation that the revisionist has any income. The learned trial court has also not come to a particular finding that what is the income of the revisionist. On the other hand, the learned trial court has suo motu arrived at a conclusion that sum of Rs. 600 per month as maintenance would be Justified. According to him there is no basis for this finding. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained. He then contends that revisionist admittedly was a student, which has not been disputed and, therefore, he cannot pay the maintenance of the wife. He had relied on Rule 17, Appendix I being Rules under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, framed by the Allahabad high Court under the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956. Relying on the said rule, Mr. Mathur contends that every application for any of the reliefs mentioned in Sections 24, 25 (1)and 26 of the Act, is to be supported by an affidavit stating the average monthly incomes of the petitioner and the respondent, the source of the incomes, particulars of other movable and immovable property owned by them and the names and ages of the persons dependent on the petitioner and the respondent. According to him. the application filed by the wife did not contain such particulars, though it is only mentioned that the petitioners monthly income is Rs. 5,000 but it has not disclosed either the movable or Immovable properly owned by the petitioner or ages of the persons dependent on him. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. According to him. the application filed by the wife did not contain such particulars, though it is only mentioned that the petitioners monthly income is Rs. 5,000 but it has not disclosed either the movable or Immovable properly owned by the petitioner or ages of the persons dependent on him. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. He has also relied on the decision in the case of Rqjambal v. Murugappan, AIR 1985 Mad 284 , in order to sustain the finding that if the petitioner has no income, then he cannot be made to pay maintenance. ( 4 ) MR. Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contends that the finding of the learned trial court is perfectly just and legal. Every able bodied person is supposed to maintain his wife. According to him though the petitioner is a student of ITI but he is earning by way of tuition, business and his father is also a Head Master of a School and that his father had movable and immovable property, therefore, even if there might be some infirmity in the order, but it was a decision of the trial court with which this Court should be very slow to interfere in revision since while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure this Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the order impugned, it appears that the Court had not come to any conclusion about the Income of the petitioner though he had recorded submission of both the parties and abruptly concluded its judgment that Rs. 600 per month is justified for maintenance. But the fact remains that there were certain allegation and counter allegation, but some allegations are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner was a student of ITI and that he has not disputed that his father is a Head Master. Neither he has disputed that his family does not possess any property. However, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner does not have any property in his own name. But such a contention has to be looked into according to the situation in the society. Neither he has disputed that his family does not possess any property. However, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner does not have any property in his own name. But such a contention has to be looked into according to the situation in the society. Even if the petitioner has no income, when he was given marriage, it presupposes that the family has sufficient income to maintain both the married son and the wife. Admittedly the petitioner is a Hindu, governed by Hindu Law. It is not disputed that the petitioner is governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. As soon as a baby is born, he becomes coparcener of his family governed under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. If it is so in that event the petitioner would deemed to have some property an coparcener in the property held by his parents or the family. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, the Apex Court has held that every able bodied person has to maintain his wife, even if he may not have any income. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an able bodied person. Therefore, he is liable to maintain the wife. ( 8 ) SO far as the question that the application is not being proper application with Rule 17 as referred to above is concerned, these are only technicality and it may not come in the way so as to dismiss such application. Even then the application is supported by affidavit of the wife and in the application she had disclosed income of the petitioner from the family properly and other income of his family. Therefore, the statement of the wife suffice to fulfil the test contained in the Rule 17. ( 9 ) SO far as the decision in the case of Rajambal (supra) is concerned, it has laid down that when an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is moved, the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction judicially. In the said case both the petitioner and respondent are students and on that basis, it was held that the maintenance is not payable or in other words it was held that since the wife was also a student of MBBS and that her father was funding for her study, therefore, it was held that she is not entitled to maintenance. ( 10 ) BUT in this case the facts are different. It is not alleged that the wife is such a student and her father is funding her education. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, in view of the decision of the Apex Court that an able bodied person has to maintain his wife. I do not find any infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned trial court as not judiciously exercised. In revision, the scope of this Court is limited to the extent to find out as to whether the trial court has exercised its discretion properly or it had exceeded its jurisdiction or it had exercised the jurisdiction illegally. Even if this Court is of a different view, this Court cannot interfere with the trial courts order. A plain reading of the order shows that it had considered the case of both the parties and had come to a conclusion that the maintenance is payable and has allowed Rs. 600 as maintenance. Thus, I do not find that the learned trial court had failed to exercise its discretion Judiciously. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, on the admitted position the wife has not proved the income of the petitioner. The amount fixed as Rs. 600 is on little high side. In my view. It would be justified if the amount is reduced to Rs. 400 with the liberty to the wife to apply for enhancement, if the circumstances have changed, by reason of the fact that the petitioner has already completed his study and is no more a student which is admitted by Mr. Mathur in his usual fairness and as such the amount of maintenance may be enhanced by the Court below to Rs. 600 or more as it might deem fit on the basis of the material that might be brought before the Court, if such application is made. ( 13 ) AT present, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 400 per month as maintenance to wife from the date of making of the application, i. e. , from 6. 7. 1998 until it is enhanced by the learned Court below or otherwise. All the arrears shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 400 per month along with the current maintenance till the entire arrears are paid. 400 per month as maintenance to wife from the date of making of the application, i. e. , from 6. 7. 1998 until it is enhanced by the learned Court below or otherwise. All the arrears shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 400 per month along with the current maintenance till the entire arrears are paid. Till the entire arrears are paid, the proceedings of the suit shall remain stayed. It will be open to the petitioner to pay lumpsum amount if he is so advised which may be adjusted against the arrears. In default, the amount shall be recoverable through appropriate measure that might be adopted by the learned trial court. ( 14 ) SO far as the question of payment of Rs. 100 as cost on each date when the wife appears in the proceeding is, however, maintained. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reason, this revision application is disposed of in the manner Indicated above and the impugned order stands modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, there will be no order as to cost. .