JUDGMENT : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.19 passed by the Family Court, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Case No. 35/18, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each per month towards the maintenance to the respondent for herself and her minor child-Darsh. 2. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 41 days is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. As per the explanation furnished by the appellant, the delay in filing the appeal has occurred inasmuch as, he was under impression that the limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days. According to the appellant he come to know about the period of limitation for filing the appeal being 30 days, when he contacted his counsel in this regard. The explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal is not plausible and acceptable, however, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the Family Court in cursory manner without application of mind. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent has deserted the appellant and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance as claimed. It is submitted that the respondent is educated woman having qualification of MBA and is earning handsome salary and therefore, the question of awarding any maintenance to her under the provisions of the Act of 1955, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is working as Project Manager in Nokia Company and having monthly income only Rs. 67,000/- per month whereas, the Family Court awarded the maintenance pendente lite taking the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. 4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. 2,50,000/- per month. 4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. 5. Though, the appellant has attempted to project that the respondent is having sufficient income to maintain herself, but admittedly, no material whatsoever was placed on record to establish that the respondent is having adequate means to maintain for herself and her minor child. It is not in dispute that the appellant is employed as Project Manager in Nokia Company at Noida. The monthly income of the appellant as disclosed by the respondent is Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. If the appellant's monthly income was only Rs. 67,000/- per month then nothing prevented him to produce the documentary evidence in this regard before the Family Court. In any case, even if the appellant has monthly income of Rs. 67,000/- as claimed, a meagre sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Family Court for the respondent herself and her minor child cannot be said to be excessive. 6. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case where the respondent has responsibility of upbringing a child, we are of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the Family Court determining interim maintenance payable to the respondent for herself and her minor child, does not warrant interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 7. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.