5. The petitioner would submit that the aforesaid order was passed by the In-charge Court. The regular Court was on leave on the given date. The matter was hurriedly taken up before the In- charge Court by 4.30 p.m. The Court concerned passed an order merely relying on the averments in the application. The respondent-wife did not place on record any evidence in support of her contentions as regards the petitioner’s financial status. The petitioner would further submit that in those days, his monthly income was very meager. Even both the petitioner and respondent-wife left the residence of petitioner’s father and started residing in a premises taken on rent. The amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of the applicants, was very excessive and grossly inconsistent with the income of petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application under Section 25 (2) of