JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this appeal, the appellant-husband seeks to question the order dated 02.02.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.251/2011 whereby the Family Court, Jhunjhunu, while allowing the application moved by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955'), has ordered the appellant to make payment of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards her maintenance; as also a lump sum of Rs. 2,100/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- per date of appearance in the pending petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. 2. This appeal is reported to be time barred by 33 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been moved. 3. In the totality of circumstances, while ignoring delay, we have considered the matter on merits. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any error or irregularity so as to consider interference in the order impugned. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-wife filed this application under Section 24 only after receiving the notice of the petition under Section 9 moved by the appellant; and prior to this, she had also moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She had also lodged prosecution in FIR No.79/2011, Police Station Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu wherefor the appellant had to seek pre-arrest bail, which was granted by this Court on 04.05.2011. The learned counsel strenuously contended that the respondent-wife is unnecessarily living separate without any just cause even though the appellant is always ready and willing to maintain the matrimonial relations with her; and she had moved the application under Section 24 only in order to somehow harm and humiliate the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant got compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and he has the responsibility to support the family whereas the respondent is a trained nurse and is capable of maintaining herself; and hence, the order passed by the Family Court calls for interference. 6. We are afraid, the submissions do not make out a case for interference. 7. So far the other litigations are concerned, they are to be dealt with by the parties in accordance with law. 6. We are afraid, the submissions do not make out a case for interference. 7. So far the other litigations are concerned, they are to be dealt with by the parties in accordance with law. So far the present matter is concerned, suffice it to notice that existing all the requirements of Section 24 of the Act of 1955, the Family Court has taken a balanced view of the matter and has allowed maintenance only at Rs. 3,000/- per month which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could only be said to be rather on lower side. Similar is the position as regards the litigation and other expenditure. 8. So far the qualification of the respondent is concerned, the same does not appear having material bearing in the matter particularly when the appellant has not been able to show if the respondent was engaged in any gainful employment so as to maintain herself. 9. With the appellant being in a settled job, the provision as made by the Family Court for the wife for her maintenance and litigation expenditure cannot be said to be unjustified. No case for interference is made out.The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******