Judgment :- Aggrieved over the order of interim maintenance ordered to the Respondent/wife in I.A.No. 6 of 2002 in H.M.O.P.No. 39 of 2001, dated 26-08-2003 (on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri), the Revision Petitioner/husband has preferred this revision. 2. The marriage between the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnised on 19-11-1999. The Respondent had given birth to a male child on 6-8-2000. After the birth of the child difference arose between the parties. In view of the strained relationship, the spouses were separated and are living separately. The Revision Petitioner/ husband has filed H.M.O.P. No. 39 of 2001 for divorce. The Respondent/wife has filed H.M.O.P.No. 5 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. In H.M.O.P.No. 39 of 2001 the Respondent/wife has filed I.A.No. 6 of 2002 claiming interim maintenance of Rs.2912/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. That application was resisted by the Revision Petitioner/husband contending that he is employed in a private workshop and he is earning only an amount of Rs.1200/- p.m. as wages. and that he is not in a position to pay the interim maintenance claimed by the Respondent. 4. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties and the monthly income of the Revision Petitioner/ husband, the learned Subordinate Judge has ordered the interim maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to the Respondent/wife and Rs.200/- p.m. to the child and also ordered litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the Revision Petitioner/ husband has preferred this revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has great difficulty in earning his livelihood and it is highly difficult for him to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.500/- + Rs.200/- ordered by the Court. It is also submitted that the trial Court has erred in passing the order of interim maintenance, when the income of the Respondent has not been proved. 6. The Revision Petitioner is said to be aged 42 years. He is said to be running a Lathe Factory, which is denied by him. In any event, even according to the Revision Petitioner, he is said to be earning a sum of Rs.1200/- per month. The interim maintenance ordered is only Rs.500/- + Rs.200/-, appears to be a reasonable amount. The interim maintenance ordered cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference. In any event, even according to the Revision Petitioner, he is said to be earning a sum of Rs.1200/- per month. The interim maintenance ordered is only Rs.500/- + Rs.200/-, appears to be a reasonable amount. The interim maintenance ordered cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference. Power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly only when patent error on the face of the record or there is some jurisdictional error or there is abuse of process of Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. Since the Revision Petitioner has expressed the difficulty in paying the amount, interest of justice would be met by ordering speedy disposal of the Matrimonial Petitions filed by the parties. 7. For the reasons stated above, the order of learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, made in I.A.No. 6 of 2002 in H.M.O.P.No. 39 of 2001, dated 26-08-2003, is confirmed and this revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this revision. The learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, is directed to expedite the enquiry in H.M.O.P.Nos. 39 of 2001 and 5 of 2002 and dispose of the same speedily.