- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the revisionist. None appears for the opposite party No. 2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Family Judge, Bareilly in Case No. 767 of 1997 Smt. Premwati v. Prempal has been carefully perused. The argument of Mr. Shukla is that the revisionist has no per manent source of employment even as labourer so he cannot be expected to earn Rs. 30-40/- per day. On this ground Mr. Shukla argues that the maintenance al lowance at Rs. 350/- per month is on higher side and this Court should interfere in the same and reduce the maintenance al lowance.
(2.) THIS Court after going through the impugned judgment and considering the market condition of these days does not feel that Rs. 30-40/- per day wages of labourer which the Court below has taken for calculating the monthly income of the revisionist husband is on higher side. A healthy and laborious workman can get work permanently, therefore, the Court does not find substance in the argument of Mr. Shukla that the revisionist cannot be expected to get wages Rs. 30-40/- per day. Moreover, the maintenance has to be fixed taking into account possible monthly in come of the husband. Considering this aspect in mind the observation of the Court below that the husband can earn Rs. 30-40 per day is fully justified. The monthly maintenance allowed to the opposite party-wife at the rate of Rs. 350 per month is in no way improper or unjust. The order does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality to justify inter ference by this Court. The revision peti tion does not disclose merit. It is accord ingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any stands discharged. Revision dismissed. .;