C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 10. 4. 1995 passed by the principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 702/93, allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to the minor daughter Heena. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the revisionists is that the learned Judge did not consider income of the opposite Party No. 1 i. e. husband of the revisionist which according to her is Rs. 2500/- as he used to run more than one tailoring shops around the town. It appears from the judgment that the learned Judge has determined the monthly income of the husband as Rs. 900/- per month and accordingly passed the order of maintenance at the above rate. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 has appeared by filing a Vakalatnatna on 20. 9. 1995 but no counter affidavit has been filed until now. In the presence of learned Counsel for both the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 has submitted that fixation of monthly income at the rate ofrs. 900/- by the Judge Family Court, was not based on evidence. He has also submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 does not own tailoring shop but is working as a tailor. He has also submitted that the amount of maintenance is excessive but he is paying the same to his wife and daughter. ( 4 ) IN this Revision the point for determination is whether the amount of maintenance is meagre and that can be enhanced, as prayed for. So there is no scope of re-opening the matter at the instance of the Opposite Party No. 1 with regard to the points challenged by him. After going through the judgment 1 find that the learned Judge did not disclose the basis of his determination of the material income of the Opposite Party No. 1. The revisionists claim is that he earns Rs. 2500/- per month by running more than one shops in the town. On this point there is dispute and to resolve the same it was necessary for him to invite proof thereof. Awarding of maintenance has also been made without assigning any reason. The revisionists claim is that he earns Rs. 2500/- per month by running more than one shops in the town. On this point there is dispute and to resolve the same it was necessary for him to invite proof thereof. Awarding of maintenance has also been made without assigning any reason. Though the Family Court has been established to make substantial justice to the aggrieved persons and that too speedily, but it does not mean that the Judge, Family Court will not pass a reasoned order based on materials on the record. The judgment suffers from the said infirmity and it should be set aside. ( 5 ) THE Revision is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, family Court, Kanpur Nagar, dated 10. 4. 1995 is hereby set aside. Let the case be remanded back to the lower Court, who is to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Since in the judgment it has been stated that the revisionist No. 1 and her daughter are hapless and are unable to maintain themselves it is further ordered that till the disposal of the petition from this date the Opposite Party No. 1 shall go on paying Rs. 300/- (There hundred) per month as interim maintenance, which shall be adjusted with the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge. .