JUDGMENT 1. - This revision filed by petitioner (husband) against Non-Petitioners (wife and children) is directed against the order dated 16th December 1999, passed by learned Family Court, Ajmer. 2. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that income of husband petitioner Chhitar Mai is very low. Petitioner earns Rs. 140/- per day and gets work for 20 days only in a month. Therefore, at the most the monthly income of the petitioner can be Rs. 2500/- only. Learned Lower Court vide impugned order granted Rs. 700/- P.M. to non-petitioners, who are wife and children of this petitioner. Looking to the income of petitioner, the amount granted to non-petitioners is excessive. The petitioner is ready to keep the non-petitioners with his but the non-petitioners do not want to stay with him. Therefore, the order passed by lower court deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 3. On the next hand, it is urged on behalf of non-petitioners that even if the income of the petitioner is taken to be Rs. 2500/- p.m., the amount of maintenance awarded by the Lower court to the non-petitioners is not excessive. Learned Lower Court granted Rs. 300/- to the Non-Petitioner No. 1, who is wife of the petitioner and Rs. 200/- each to N.R Nos. 2 and 3, who are sons of parties. Learned lower Court has discussed in detail in its order that it is the husband, who has neglected the wife and children. 4. Counsel for the non-petitioners further argued that this revision is filed against the order of granting maintenance and revisional jurisdiction of High Court in such matters is limited one. Interference of High Court is not called for unless and until the order passed by lower court is perverse. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This revision is filed against the order of maintenance passed by the lower Court. Legal position on this point is settled. The revisional jurisdiction of High Court against such orders is very limited. High Court should not interfere in such order unless and until the order passed by lower court is perverse. So far as the amount of maintenance granted to non-petitioners concerned, looking to the income of petitioner Chhitar Mai and other circumstances, it can not be termed as excessive. In my view the amount of maintenance granted to wife at the rate of Rs. So far as the amount of maintenance granted to non-petitioners concerned, looking to the income of petitioner Chhitar Mai and other circumstances, it can not be termed as excessive. In my view the amount of maintenance granted to wife at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. and Rs. 200/- p.m. each to both the sons is reasonable. Therefore, on this point, revision can not be sustained. 7. So far as other point is concerned that petitioner wants to keep his wife and children with him, I have examined the judgment of lower court, it has rightly held that Chhitar Mai has neglected his wife and children. In my view the judgment of the lower court by which it has accepted the application of non-petitioners for maintenance is legal one and it needs no interference.. 8. Consequently, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. *******