JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4th September, 1989 passed by Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which the respondent wife has been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500.00 per month from the date of the application and a sum of Rs. 2.000.00 as litigation expenses.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that what has weighed in the mind of the learned District Judge for assessment of income around Rs. 15,000.00 per month is that the petitioner is a wealth tax assessed which cannot be the basis for assessment of income of the petitioner as under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of maintenance, it is the petitioner’s own income which has to be the basis.
(3) I have seen the trial Court’s order, particularly paragraph 4, and find that the trial Court has assessed the income of the petitioner not only on the basis of the fact that he is a wealth tax assessed but other factors also and thereafter he has assessed the income of the petitioner at about Rs 15,000.00 p.m. I am in general broad agreement with the view expressed by the trial Court. For the purpose of assessment of income and for the grant of interim maintenance, the status of the joint family, social status and business can also be seen. It has come on the record that the petitioner is living in a posh colony in Daryaganj. i.e., at Ansari Road and maintains a car and a scooter and also running a jewellery business at Daryaganj. His brother is also doing business abroad. The petitioner is also advancing loan to various persons.
(4) On the other hand, the version of the petitioner that he is earning Rs. 2.600.00 p.m. cannot be accepted as correct as with the standard of life which he is leading and the fact that he is maintaining three children as well, he can hardly make both ends meet with the meagre income of Rs. 2.600.00 p.m.
(5) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment of income of the petitioner around Rs. 15,000.00 p.m. by the trial Court is neither unreasonable nor excessive or perverse. Even if it is assumed that his income is round about Rs. 10.000.00 p.m., in that situation as well the grant of maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. from the date of the application is neither excessive nor unreasonable or perverse, having regard to the status of her husband.
(6) It is settled principle of law that in revision petition this Court has limited jurisdiction and unless there is jurisdictional error, the Court has no power to interfere.
(7) In view of what is stated above, no interference is called for. Dismissed in liming.