JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.11.18 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur, in Civil Misc. Application No. 622/17, whereby an application preferred by the respondent u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as the maintenance pendente lite to the respondent and further to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- in lump sum as litigation and travelling expenses. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without ascertaining the correct factual position regarding the source of income of the respondent, the Family Court has seriously erred in awarding interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent, stating that the appellant-husband has the responsibility to maintain the respondent-wife. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent deliberately left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is a poor agriculturist and without there being any cogent evidence regarding his source of income, the amount of maintenance awarded is in much higher side. Learned counsel submitted that order passed by the Family Court is ex facie non speaking order. 3. 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. 4. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. Though, the appellant has attempted to project that he is a poor agriculturist but the factum of the appellant earning a reasonable income from agriculture and livestock breeding, cannot be denied. Thus, on the overall consideration of the matter, the interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month determined by the Family Court, while permitting adjustment of the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent in other proceedings, cannot be said to be in higher side. Thus, on the overall consideration of the matter, the interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month determined by the Family Court, while permitting adjustment of the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent in other proceedings, cannot be said to be in higher side. The wife leaving the matrimonial home without justifiable reason cannot be a ground for denying maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The stay petition also stands disposed of.