JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2011 whereby the appeal of the present petitioner has been partly allowed and the interim maintenance has been reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the trial Court has ordered Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance to be awarded to the respondent. It was further reduced to Rs. 6,000/- by the appellate Court but still he is aggrieved with the order as he is earning only Rs. 3,500/- per month and in these circumstances, it is not possible for him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 3. The contention of the respondent is that the learned Courts below have considered the application in right perspective and there is no need to interfere. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order of the appellate Court goes to show that the petitioner has alleged that he is earning only Rs. 3,500/- per month but it was considered by the appellate Court that salary certificate, produced by the petitioner, is yet to be proved and wedding card, which was from the side of the petitioner, goes to show that they were having various firms in Jaipur and in foreign countries and the present petitioner is also having immovable properties at Subhash Chok, JLN Marg, Trimurti Circle at Jaipur and looking to the capacity of the present petitioner, interim maintenance has been awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors., 2008(4) RLW 3440 (SC) , which deals with the maintenance under Sections 18 and 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, where application of maintenance regarding the daughter-in-law was discussed. But, in the present case, according to the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, it is obligatory on the part of the present petitioner to provide adequate, fair and reasonable maintenance, which should be consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. The contention of the present petitioner that Rs. 16 lakhs have been spent on the marriage, can very well ascertain the standard of living of the present petitioner. The contention of the present petitioner that Rs. 16 lakhs have been spent on the marriage, can very well ascertain the standard of living of the present petitioner. Hence, the learned trial Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties and after considering the material facts of the case, maintenance has rightly awarded, which is interim in nature and still present petitioner is having an opportunity to lead his evidence..Looking at the above, I find no perversity in the impugned order and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******