ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The present appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against order passed by the Ld Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, pending proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant seeking divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955"). 2. Application came to be filed by the respondent-wife seeking interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act of 1955, pursuant to which a total sum of Rs. 7,000/- was awarded to her towards interim maintenance along with one time expenses of Rs. 11,000/- & Rs. 500/- as and when she attends the proceedings before the Family Court. 3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2012 and there is no issue from this wedlock, it has been alleged that because of matrimonial discord, application has been filed by the appellant seeking divorce under section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the Ld. Family Court. 4. It is informed that prior to the divorce petition an application was filed under section 9 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, at the same time the respondent-wife also filed separate application under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and pursuant to which Rs. 2500/- has been awarded to her towards maintenance. That apart, in the pending proceedings before the Family Court she also moved a separate application for interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act of 1955 & from the material which has come on record the appellant held the post of Assistant Manager in the Mother Dairy, Alwar on the salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. In the reply to the application filed by the appellant to the application filed under section 24 of the Act of 1955 it has been alleged that he later left the job but this fact has been disputed that he served as Assistant Manager in Mother Daily, Alwar and after leaving job as alleged, where he is now employed, or having no income. 5. It is a normal practice that whenever the applications are filed for interim maintenance, the facts in totality are completely denied and it is left to be proved by the person who alleged in the application. 6. The ld. 5. It is a normal practice that whenever the applications are filed for interim maintenance, the facts in totality are completely denied and it is left to be proved by the person who alleged in the application. 6. The ld. Family Court in the given facts & circumstances took a reasonable view while holding that he remained in service as Manager in Mother Dairy, Alwar and earned Rs. 35,000/- at the relevant point of time & even if he has left the job, at least minimum benchmark of his earning, in the absence of any tangible material to the contrary on record deserves acceptance and salary last earned can be presumed as his income and considered it appropriate that he being qualified can earn either being employed/self employment, & the appellant is not disclosing his earning just to pay maintenance to his wife for her subsistence & finally arrived to a conclusion that a total sum of Rs. 7,000/- (adjusting Rs. 2,500/-) has been awarded towards interim maintenance along with one time payment of litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- & Rs. 500/- on each hearing before the Family Court under the order impugned dated 26.04.2017. 7. Apart from filing of the appeal no tangible evidence has been placed on record, in rebuttal neither before the Family Court nor before this Court that he has left the job or if he has left the job what is his source of income and where he is presently employed and this Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that the explanation furnished by him with regard to his income before the Family Court is a lame excuse to disown the responsibility being a towards his wife. 8. In the given facts & circumstances after going through the order dated 26.04.2017, we find no manifest error in the order passed by the ld. Family Court which may call for our interference. 9. The appeal fails & dismissed.