JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2005 passed by the Family Judge, Udaipur whereby learned Judge has directed to non-petitioner, Raish Khan, to pay maintenance of Rs. 700/- to his wife Mumtaz Begum petitioner No. 1, and Rs. 300/- to his daughters Miss Sazeda, Miss Saista and Miss Khusra petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Since petitioners claim that the maintenance amount is too little for their survival, they approached this Court for enhancing the maintenance amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1, Mumtaz Begam, and non-petitioner No. 2, Raish Khan, were married in the year 1999 according to Muslim customs and rites. However, from the very beginning the marriage was a disturbed one, as petitioner No. 1 claims that the non-petitioner was not only addicted to alcohol, but would also demand dowry from her. Despite having three small daughters, the petitioner No. 1 was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her daughters. Since the petitioner No. 1 was unable to maintain herself and the three daughters, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Udaipur. Although, the non-petitioner submitted his reply, he did not contest the case; in fact, subsequently he stopped appearing before the Family Court. Thus, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte against him. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 20.9.2005, learned Judge granted a maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, this petition for enhancement. 3. Vide order dated 16.2.2006, this Court had issued a notice to the non-petitioner. Subsequently, the notice was served on 11.1.2008. Despite the service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. Therefore, even this Court has no option but to proceed ex-parte against him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the petitioner, the non-petitioner was engaged in the business of denting and painting; from the said business, he was earning between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Moreover, according to the reply submitted by the non-petitioner, he was working in M/s. Manikaran Motors and they paid Rs. 1,500/-. However, the learned Judge did not believe the statement of non-petitioner and granted a maintenance of Rs. 1,600/-. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Moreover, according to the reply submitted by the non-petitioner, he was working in M/s. Manikaran Motors and they paid Rs. 1,500/-. However, the learned Judge did not believe the statement of non-petitioner and granted a maintenance of Rs. 1,600/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the notice sent by the non-petitioner for restoration of conjugal rights, he has clearly admitted that he was engaged in a small business. This notice strengthens the case of petitioner that non-petitioner was not an employee, but was a owner of small business of denting and painting. Lastly, considering the fact that impugned order was passed in the year 2005, in the last six years the rate of inflation has increased. Hence, the maintenance should be enhanced by this Court. 5. Although, the notice have been served to non-petitioner but he has chosen not to appear before the Court. Thus, this Court does not have benefit of any assistance. 6. Considering the fact that the income of the non-petitioner would have increased in the last six years, considering the fact that daughters are minor and considering the fact that petitioner No. 1 has to bring them up, this Court has no other option but to enhance the maintenance for the petitioners. Therefore, it is directed that non-petitioner shall pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner No. 1, and Rs. 1,000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the date of order of this Court. 7. Hence, this revision petition is hereby allowed.Revision petition allowed. *******