ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29-1-2015 passed in M.C. No. 3225 of 2014. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner herein, is the husband of the respondent and also father of two minor sons who are living with the respondent. In a petition filed by the respondent before the Court below, the respondent herein, filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance. The Court below by the order dated 29-1-2015 after taking note of the rival contentions has ordered that the petitioner herein pay monthly maintenance at Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent herein. The said maintenance as ordered would also include the maintenance of the two children of the parties. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as ordered by the Court below is exorbitant and without reference to the income of the petitioner, which is meagre and without taking note of the fact that the respondent is having her own business and even otherwise she is qualified and capable of taking appropriate employment. 3. The learned Counsel with reference to the additional documents produced along with I.A. No. 1 of 2015 would contend that the petitioner is a Director of the company of which the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association is produced at Annexure-R1, returns of the company and Value Added Tax Registration Certificate are at Annexures-R2 to R4. In that light, it is contended that the conclusion reached by the learned Judge of the Court below is not justified and that the order calls for interference. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent referring to the very same documents would point out that it is the petitioner herein, who was in charge of the affairs of the said company and that the respondent herein was shown only as a nominee as a Director from the income from the said company, admittedly the petitioner was depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the account of the respondent which had been abruptly stopped. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Court below before arriving at a conclusion. 50,000/- to the account of the respondent which had been abruptly stopped. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Court below before arriving at a conclusion. In that light, the Court below referring in detail to the objection statement had arrived at a conclusion that the amount is required to be ordered for maintenance of the respondent as well as two children who are pursuing their education. 5. In the light of the contentions put forth, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below would disclose that the Court below in fact has referred to the nature of the contention which has been put forth with regard to the respondent being a Director of the company known as 'My Return Solutions Private Limited'. In that regard, the contention of the petitioner herein before the Court below was that towards the salary a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was being deposited to the account of the respondent. The contention as has been put forth herein relating to the respondent having income from another company known as "M/s. Connoiseur Electronics Private Limited", has been referred to and in that regard, the Court below has taken into consideration that the company is running under the loss for the last seven years. Therefore in that light the income of the petitioner has been kept in view and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is well placed has arrived at the conclusion. In that light, even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the documents produced along with the application for producing additional documents is taken into consideration, the same would not negative the consideration which has already been made by the Court below. 6. The fact that the petitioner herein was depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the account of the respondent and the same was abruptly stopped from September 2014 cannot be in dispute. Even if the contention of the petitioner that the said amount was being deposited as salary for having worked in the said company is also taken into consideration, keeping in view the fact that the respondent admittedly is not working thereafter would mean that the respondent would require the said amount towards maintenance not only for herself but also two grown-up children who are pursuing education in the school. 7. 7. That apart, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein has filed a memo dated 11-8-2015 before the Court below wherein the petitioner has undertaken to pay the arrears of maintenance that has been ordered by the Court below. Therefore, the cumulative consideration of all these aspects would disclose that the Court below has adverted to all aspects of the matter, taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and also the need of maintenance by the respondent to maintain herself and two children, has thereafter arrived a conclusion. Such a well-considered order passed by the Court below does not call for interference. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly disposed of.