JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Birbhum in Misc. Case No.460 of 2018 thereby directing the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- to the wife/opposite party. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an unemployed young man cultivating only four bighas of land and owns a tractor which is hypothecated. The couple got married two years ago. They had three daughters who are married and one son who had died sometime ago. After the death of the son, the opposite party/wife started forcing the petitioner to leave her paternal home and the petitioner refused to do so. This led to disputes between the two. The learned Magistrate was absolutely wrong in holding that the husband would be earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month and on that premise the learned Magistrate erroneously granted interim allowance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to be paid to the wife. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition. 4. It appears that the wife''s case was the husband belonging to a rich family. The father of the husband had landed property measuring about 70 bighas. In the application filed by the wife before the learned Trial Court, she further alleged that the petitioner had several businesses of medicine shop, hardware shop and owned several other properties. From the document that was exhibited regarding ownership of a tractor by the petitioner, it is evident that the husband used to make payment of EMI of about Rs.14,000/- per month for the same. If a person was not earning sufficiently he would hardly spent Rs.14,000/- for giving EMI for a vehicle. 5. In view of the materials available on record thus far and the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate regarding the paying capacity of the petitioner/husband, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. 5. In view of the materials available on record thus far and the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate regarding the paying capacity of the petitioner/husband, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. The learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the hearing of the main application under Section 125 of the Code as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.