Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.64/12 on the files of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. He is the husband of the 1st respondent as well as the father of the respondents 2 and 3 herein. The respondents have filed the above M.C. under Sec.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance which was directed to be paid earlier in M.C.No.58/98 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. In the above said earlier M.C., the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.400/-to the 1st petitioner and Rs.300/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 herein. In this M.C., they have claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs.5,000/-each per mensem. After trial, the learned Family Court Judge directed the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance allowance as prayed for. This revision petition is filed challenging the enhancement of maintenance allowance on various grounds. 2. It is the case of the respondents that the marriage of the 1st respondent with the revision petitioner was solemnized on 7/6/1992 and the respondents 2 and 3 are daughters born in that wed-lock. The matrimonial relationship had broken down and culminated in filing of O.P.No.176/98 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur and C.C.No.858/97 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry, and the earlier M.C. No.58/98. According to the respondents, the 1st respondent has no job or source of income. The 2nd respondent is studying for Plus Two in G.V.H.S.S., Ollur and the 3rd respondent is studying in 9th standard at St. Joseph's H.S., Veluppadam. The children are in need of a substantial amount to meet their educational expenses like tuition fee, bus fee and other incidental expenses. Similarly, the cost of living has increased enormously and considering the hike in living index, the amount which is being received by them as maintenance allowance is not sufficient for their food, cloth, medicine, treatment expenses etc. Therefore, they are in need of Rs.5,000/- each per month. 3. The revision petitioner filed a counter affidavit admitting the marriage as well as paternity of the children; but denying the claim for maintenance. According to the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent is getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- by doing tailoring work. He denied the allegation that he is having assets, motor car, rubber estates, bank balance etc. 3. The revision petitioner filed a counter affidavit admitting the marriage as well as paternity of the children; but denying the claim for maintenance. According to the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent is getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- by doing tailoring work. He denied the allegation that he is having assets, motor car, rubber estates, bank balance etc. He worked abroad for a period of around five years and thereafter he returned to India and now he is working as an autorikshaw driver and he is getting daily wage of Rs.100/- only. Out of that amount, he has to maintain his second wife and two children born in that wed-lock. In addition to this, he has to maintain his aged parents also. He expressed his willingness to enhance the quantum of maintenance to Rs.750/-per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- each per month to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 4. Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner advanced arguments in support of the contentions raised in the Revision and challenging the findings of the learned Family Court Judge. The learned senior counsel pointed out that now he is working as an autorikshaw driver and he is getting only Rs.100/-per day as wages. But he has to give maintenance to his second wife and two children born in that wed-lock, in addition to his aged parents. The learned Family Court Judge has not considered his liability to look after his second wife and two children in the determination of the quantum of maintenance. The learned counsel contended that he is residing in a housing colony set up under the One Lakh Housing Scheme and there is no evidence to show that he is living in affluence. But the learned Family Court Judge miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and erroneously determined the quantum of maintenance allowance. No way the amount determined is justifiable. 5. Per contra, Sri. C.A. Chacko, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the impugned order. He submits that the revision petitioner is a father who doesn't know in which standard his children are studying and also who doesn't know the place where his 1st wife and two children are residing. 5. Per contra, Sri. C.A. Chacko, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the impugned order. He submits that the revision petitioner is a father who doesn't know in which standard his children are studying and also who doesn't know the place where his 1st wife and two children are residing. The learned counsel further drew my attention to his deposition that the educational expenses of his elder daughter born in the second wed-lock, studying in 9th standard is Rs.1,000/- per month and the younger daughter born in the very same wed-lock studying in 5th standard is Rs.600/-per month. The learned counsel further submits that the children born in the first wed-lock is also entitled to get such standard of education and they are also studying in private educational institutions. But the revision petitioner himself admitted that he is fully ignorant of the whereabouts of his first wife and children; he had neglected them. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each is just and proper considering the living expenses of family consisting of three members of whom two are students studying in private schools at higher secondary level. Now they are depending upon the brothers of the 1st respondent for their livelihood. 6. In view of the rival submissions, the question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-each per month to the respondents. Put it differently, the question is whether the quantum of enhancement determined by the Family Court is justifiable? 7. Going by the order, it could be seen that the marriage as well as the paternity are admitted and the marriage irretrievably broken and culminated in filing of O.P.No.176/98 and C.C.No.858/97 in addition to the earlier M.C. Going by the deposition of R.W.1, it could be seen that in cross-examination he himself admitted that he doesn't know in which standard his children are studying. So also, he doesn't know the place where his first wife and two children are residing. In short, he is unaware of the whereabouts of the respondents, the first wife and two children. Therefore, there is no need to embark upon an enquiry to the question whether he has been neglecting the respondents; his own admission speaks volumes. So also, he doesn't know the place where his first wife and two children are residing. In short, he is unaware of the whereabouts of the respondents, the first wife and two children. Therefore, there is no need to embark upon an enquiry to the question whether he has been neglecting the respondents; his own admission speaks volumes. Undoubtedly, the revision petitioner has been neglecting the respondents and refused to pay maintenance except the quantum of amount directed to be paid in the earlier M.C. So, the question is whether the said amount is sufficient to meet the increase in the cost of living. The steep hike in the cost of living is an accepted phenomena and no evidence is required for the same as it is an admitted fact. 8. Coming to the source of income of the revision petitioner, it could be seen that he was working abroad for a period from 1992 to 1998 and returned to India. Thereafter, he went abroad again and returned to India in 2008. He deposed that now he is working as an autorikshaw driver and he is getting daily wage of Rs.100/-only. But at the same time, he deposed that the educational expenses of his elder daughter born in the second wed-lock is Rs.1,000/- per month and she is studying in 9th standard. The educational expenses of his second daughter in the very same wed-lock studying in 5th standard is Rs.600/-per month. At no stretch of imagination it could be believed that a person having monthly income of Rs.3,000/-could spend Rs.1,600/- for the educational expenses of his children. Certainly, his income is not as he deposed before court and his income will be much higher than the admitted income. It is pertinent to note that income is a fact which is exclusively within the knowledge of the person who gets it. When the person himself admits that he has income, unless the real income or at least a probable or believable income is disclosed by the person himself with reliable evidence, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that he has sufficient income. Such an inference is supported by Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act; i.e., that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who holds it. Such an inference is supported by Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act; i.e., that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who holds it. In evidence he admitted that his tharavad house is a two-storied building and he has no case that he is a resident of 'One lakh housing scheme settlement colony'. His another contention is that he has to pay maintenance allowance to his second wife and two children born in that wed-lock. 9. Admittedly, he married again when the earlier marriage is subsisting as such. I am of the view that the revision petitioner was so confident of his income and that is why he married again, when he had to maintain first wife and two children. It is true that the Muslim Personal Law permits to marry more than one woman, two, or three, or four; while the earlier marriages are alive. But, under the guise of subsequent marriages, he cannot escape from the statutory liability to pay maintenance allowance to the wife and the children in the earlier marriages or he cannot treat them unequally. Certainly the wife and the children in the earlier marriage have a right to live with the standard of life at par with the standard of life of the revision petitioner and the wife and children of the subsequent marriages. More pertinently, children born in the earlier marriages are entitled to get same standard of education as that of the children born in the subsequent marriages and father is liable to provide it equally. To hold the above proposition, I place reliance on the Sacred principle laid down in the Noble QUR'AN, which is quoted below: "Surat An-Nisa' (The Women) IV In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. 1. O mankind! ............. 2. ................... 3. And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. 4. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. 4. And give to the women (whom you marry) their Mahr (obligatory bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) with a good heart; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it, and enjoy it without fear of any harm (as Allah has made it lawful). 5. And give not to the foolish your property which Allah has made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice." (Ref: Translation of the meanings of THE NOBLE QUR'AN in the English language By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali (Formerly Professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings, Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah) And Dr.Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Formerly Director, University Hospital, Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al- Munawwarah) 10. Going by the evidence it could be seen that the revision petitioner has two other brothers and they are working abroad and among them, he also admitted that, one brother owns a rubber estate. In such circumstances, in the absence of evidence to show that he alone is maintaining his mother, this Court is not inclined to believe that he alone has to meet the maintenance of the parents. 11. Admittedly, the elder daughter born in the second wed-lock is studying in a private school at 9th standard and an amount of Rs.1,000/- is being spent for her educational expenses. So also, Rs.600/-is being given to meet the educational expenses of the second child studying at 5th standard. The evidence shows that now the 2nd respondent herein is studying at college level and the 3rd respondent is studying for Plus Two. Certainly they are also entitled to get an amount higher than the amount which is being spent for the children in the second wed-lock, who are studying at 9th and 5th standards respectively. The revision petitioner is liable to maintain both families equally and justly. So far no amount has been given to them for their educational expenses, except the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.300/- each only. I find that Rs.300/-is not sufficient to meet their living and educational expenses. Similarly, Rs.400/- is too low, when comparing with increase in living expenses of the 1st respondent. 12. So far no amount has been given to them for their educational expenses, except the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.300/- each only. I find that Rs.300/-is not sufficient to meet their living and educational expenses. Similarly, Rs.400/- is too low, when comparing with increase in living expenses of the 1st respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to the date of birth of the 2nd respondent. The date of birth of the 2nd respondent is 19.4.1983. So, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel, the 2nd respondent is now a major, who attained majority on 19.4.2011 and she is not entitled to get maintenance allowance after 19.4.2011. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, her date of birth is 19.9.1995 and she will attain majority on 19.9.2013. Certainly she is entitled to get maintenance allowance upto that date. 13. That apart, while giving oral evidence, the revision petitioner contended that he met with an accident and had undergone a surgery for the same. According to him, now he is incapable of doing work as earlier. But absolutely no evidence has been adduced before the trial court to show that he had met with an accident or he sustained any kind of physical disability. In the absence of such evidence this Court is also not inclined to accept that contention. Had it been so, he could have adduced cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the accident and his incapacity caused thereupon. Therefore, it could be seen that he is a healthy able-bodied man with capacity to earn livelihood for his family for which he is statutorily responsible. 14. Considering the standard of life and the living cost of the respondents and the income of the revision petitioner, I find that the direction to pay Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Coming to the 2nd respondent I find that she is not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner after 19.4.2011 and the petition for enhancement was filed in the year 2012 only. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Coming to the 2nd respondent I find that she is not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner after 19.4.2011 and the petition for enhancement was filed in the year 2012 only. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, I find that she is entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month from the date of petition till the date of attaining majority, i.e. 19.9.2013. The revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance allowance as stated above. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that a huge amount is due as arrears and he is unable to pay in lump sum. The learned counsel prayed for some time to pay the arrears. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a reasonable time can be given to pay the arrears and also pointed out that so far no amount has been paid. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner is given four months' time to pay entire arrear provided that half of the arrear amount shall be deposited before the Family Court within two months and the remaining amount shall be deposited within the next two months. The respondents are allowed to withdraw the said arrear. Warrant pending in enforcement of the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance for two months. If he pays the first half of the arrear within the stipulated time, the said order will stand extended for a further period of two months also. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.