JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioners, who are the wife and minor daughter of the respondent, have filed this petition for enhancement of maintenance awarded by the District Judge, Family Court, Hissar, in a petition filed under Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders as in the absence of any rebuttal to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the petitioners, their plea that the respondent earns Rs. 25,000/- per month as a partner of Jindal Sanitary Store has to be accepted. The finding that there is no evidence about the income of the respondent disregards the fact that the pleadings and evidence remain unrebutted. It is further argued that as the court below has accepted that the respondent is obliged to maintain the petitioners, there was no reason for the Court below to have awarded a paltry sum of Rs.1500/- and Rs. 700- per month respectively. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent put in appearance in person. Parties were requested to explore the possibility of a settlement. However, as a settlement was not possible, the matter was set down for hearing on merits. 4. On the date fixed for arguments, the respondent-husband did not put in appearance and was consequently proceeded against ex-parte. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the District Judge, Family Court, Hissar, has committed an error of jurisdiction. As is apparent from the record, the respondent’s defence was struck off and he was proceeded against ex-parte. The averments in the petition for maintenance and the evidence adduced by the petitioners remain unrebutted and therefore, have to be accepted as correct. The pleading that the respondent-husband is earning Rs.25,000/- per month from his share in Jindal Sanitary Store, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani, owns a godown and lends money remains unrebutted. The family Court, Hisar, therefore, erred in holding that there is no proof regarding the exact income of the respondent. Maintenance is a right and not a largesse that a Court doles out to a spouse/child. To award an amount of Rs. 1700/- and Rs. 700/- to an abandoned wife and child is a perversion of the statutory power to award maintenance. Maintenance is a right and not a largesse that a Court doles out to a spouse/child. To award an amount of Rs. 1700/- and Rs. 700/- to an abandoned wife and child is a perversion of the statutory power to award maintenance. The amount awarded is less than minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer and is even otherwise insufficient to meet the basic needs of the petitioner-wife and the minor daughter. The District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, committed another error as maintenance has been awarded from the date of the order. It is established position in law that maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application/petition. 6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the maintenance awarded to petitioner no. 1 is enhanced of Rs. 10,000/- per month and to petitioner no. 2 Rs. 7,000/- per month respectively from the date of filing of the petition before the District Judge, Family Court, at Hissar. No order as to costs. ----------------------