JUDGMENT:- This Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2005 in Petition No.E-155/03 under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance for the two applicants-wife and daughter. 2. None appeared for the app1ieants on 25.11.2009 and 4.1.2009. Again a chance was given to the counsel for applicants to appear but today also he is absent None appeared for the respondent as well. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order made by the Family Court rejecting application of both the applicants for grant of maintenance. I have also gone through the evidence that was tendered before the Family Court. 4. It appears that maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month to the wife-applicant no. 1 herein was granted in Regular Civil Suit No.1593 of 1990 under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The wife then filed the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/per month for herself and even for daughter Indira who was 13 years of age on the date of filing application on 27.4.2003. It appears that the non-applicant/husband is working in Ordnance Factory, Ambazari. Before the Family Court, applicant no.1/wife Chandrakala examined herself and her brother Raju. Chandrakala was cross-examined by the husband, non-applicant examined himself in the said case and was cross-examined. It is surprising that the Family Court states in its order that the non-applicant did not appear in the Court nor adduced evidence. The evidence of Chandr2kala and her brother Raju has not been shaken in material particulars. As a matter of fact, as observed by the Family Court, witness Raju was partly cross-examined and after his cross-examination was defered, nobody bothered to cross-examine him further and it remained as it is. The evidence of respondent/husband if read completely no where he has proved his defence. The only ground on which the application was resisted was that she was living in adultery but he did not adduce any evidence, and as such the Family Court recorded negative finding on that aspect. No reasons for refusing maintenance to the applicant no.1/wife has been given when in her evidence she has clearly stated that she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter. So far as the claim for maintenance of daughter Indira is concerned, the Family Court has made maximum confusion in its order. No reasons for refusing maintenance to the applicant no.1/wife has been given when in her evidence she has clearly stated that she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter. So far as the claim for maintenance of daughter Indira is concerned, the Family Court has made maximum confusion in its order. There is a clear evidence by the wife as well as by her brother Raju that after the marriage applicant no. 1 lived with the husband for quite sometime and thus there was cohabitation and that the child Indira was born out of the wedlock. The Only ground on which the Family Court refused maintenance to the daughter is that she did not produce birth certificate from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. There is no reason given by the Family Court to reject the evidence about paternity of the child that was adduced by Chandrakala and her brother Raju. There is admission by non-applicant Bhaskar that she did cohabit with him after the marriage. Another reason given by the Family Court to refuse maintenance is that the wife did not claim maintenance for her daughter when she initiated proceedings under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. This is absurd. The said order is thus clearly faulty and based on illogical and irrelevant reasons. I have myself checked up evidence of these witnesses and I find that the wife has clearly proved the case for maintenance for herself and for her daughter. The respondent is working in the Ordnance Factory. Though it is claimed that in the year 1990 husband's take home salary was Rs.266/- per month, the present position has not been brought on record. Thus now by making guess work, in the absence of material on record which the respondent was bound to produce before the trial Court or before this Court, I will have to make working arrangement regarding grant of maintenance. Looking to the age of the daughter, who was 13 years in 2003, and her education, it would be appropriate to award maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant no.1-wife exclusive of Rs.300/- per month that was granted to her in the earlier proceedings and Rs.1500/- per month to the daughter from the date of petition, i.e. 27.4.2003. With these directions, criminal revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.