ORDER : 1. The husband has filed this revision petition challenging the monthly maintenance Rs.8,000/-and Rs.7,000/-granted to his wife and son, respectively. 2. At the time of filing the petition before the Magistrate, it was not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a Manager at Syndicate Bank and as on 16.05.2015 he was having a gross salary of Rs. 36,767/-and a net salary Rs.12,143/-after total deductions of Rs.24,624/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in monthly salary of Rs.36,767/-a sum of Rs.24,624/-was being deducted and the petitioner was thus only having a take home salary of Rs.12,143/-and therefore the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/-was unreasonable and cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the petitioner, at present, is a Senior Manager in Syndicate Bank and drawing nearly Rs.60,000/-and having regard to this fact, the direction of the Trial Court to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/-cannot be said to be un-reasonable or excessive. 5. The Trial Court, on consideration of the materials produced before it, came to the conclusion that the claim of the husband that the sum of Rs.24,624/-had been deducted out of his gross salary and this deduction could not be taken into consideration for payment of maintenance to his wife and son. The Trial Court noted that if only the compulsory deduction of Rs.3,640/-was deducted out of the gross salary of Rs.36,767/-, the respondent would be getting a sum of 33,000/-per month and the other deductions claimed by him i.e. towards repayment of housing loan, thrift loan, could not factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the maintenance. This reasoning came by the Trial Court cannot be said to be either unreasonable or perverse. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was earning Rs.33,000/-about 5 years ago and having regard to the rate of inflation for the past five years, in my view the order directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/-to his wife and Rs.7,000/-to his son, respectively, cannot be said to be on the higher side. I find no ground to exercise my revisional powers and accordingly dismiss this revision petition.