ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the husband who is challenging the order of the Magistrate by which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to his wife, the respondent herein. 2. The Magistrate in arriving at the decision in awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- has taken note of the fact that though the petitioner claimed he was working as a labourer in the hardware shop belonging to the somebody else, he nevertheless stated in his own affidavit, Ex.P4, that he was the owner of hardware shop. The Magistrate has accordingly deduced that, if the respondent was the owner of a hardware shop, he would easily be earning a sum of Rs. 18,000 to 21,000/- per month. 3. The Magistrate has thereafter noticed that the respondent wife has also suffered burn injuries and was required to take medical treatment in that regard and taking into the overall consideration of the matter has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. 4. The petitioner, though contended that he was not employee of hardware shop, did not chose to produce any documents to establish the said fact. 5. In my view, the reasoning adopted by the Magistrate for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to 21,000/- cannot be found fault with and the consequential direction to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- cannot also be said to be unreasonable and excessive. 6. I find no merit in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed.