JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A.S. Barlota, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. M.A. Manjramkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.3. 2. By consent, admitted and heard finally. By consent, calling for the record and proceedings dispensed with. 3. The applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 is the minor child of the applicant and the respondent no.1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 31-8-2013, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, to the respondent no.1, and Rs. 2,000/- per month, to the respondent no.2. He has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application. 4. It is submitted that the applicant could not adduce evidence showing the income of the respondent no.1. It is pointed out that, the respondent no. 1 works as a LIC agent and it is contended that, she gets sufficient income from that profession. It is also submitted that the applicant is looking after his other son and is required to spend about Rs. 8,000/- per month, for maintaining him. It is also submitted that, the applicant has no grievance with respect to the maintenance ordered in favour of the respondent no.2, but his grievance is only against the order directing maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.1. 5. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. 6. That, the respondent no. 1 is working as a LIC agent was considered by the Family Court. The Family Court observed in para 20 of the order, that, the applicant had failed to show how much income the respondent no.1 was getting from doing the LIC business. The Family Court noted the contention of the respondent no.1 that, because of old age, she was not doing that business, and that, she was not getting any commission or income from LIC business. 7. During the course of hearing, my attention is drawn to the bank statement of the respondent no.1, which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit "E". I find that, the respondent no.1 has been getting some amounts by way of commission from the LIC. However, I find that this statement was not produced before the Family Court during the course of inquiry. I find that, the respondent no.1 has been getting some amounts by way of commission from the LIC. However, I find that this statement was not produced before the Family Court during the course of inquiry. As such, the evidence of the income of the respondent no.1 was not available to the Family Court. It is clear that, therefore, the Family Court has accepted the claim of the respondent no. 1 that, she was not doing the business of LIC agent any more, and that, at the material time, she did not get any commission or income from the said business. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant deserves to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that the respondent no. 1 is able to maintain herself. He submits that, in the circumstances, namely, that the applicant is admittedly already maintaining a son of the applicant and the respondent no. 1, and that the applicant is ready to maintain the respondent no.2, he deserves to be given an opportunity to show the income of the respondent no.1 - at least, for the purpose of enabling the court to fix the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the respondent no.1. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who submits that, in that event, even the respondent no. 1 should be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence. Needless to say that, if the applicant is being given an opportunity to adduce further evidence before the Family Court, the respondent no.1 also shall be entitled to have a similar opportunity. 10. Both the Counsel expressed before me that, it would be proper if the Family Court permits the parties to be represented by Advocates. According to them, the fact that, proper evidence was not adduced during the inquiry, is attributable to the non-availability of legal assistance by Advocates to plead their respective cases. This is a matter which may be urged before the Family Court, and the Family Court shall take this into consideration, while taking a decision in that regard. 11. In the result, the Revision Application is partly allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 31-8-2013 is set aside. This is a matter which may be urged before the Family Court, and the Family Court shall take this into consideration, while taking a decision in that regard. 11. In the result, the Revision Application is partly allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 31-8-2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for considering and deciding the same in accordance with law, after giving to the parties, an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if so desired, with respect to the income of the respondent no. 1, if any, and her ability, if any, to maintain herself. (b) The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 30th January 2014. The Family Court shall decide the matter afresh on or before 31st March 2014. It is made clear that, till then, the applicant shall continue to pay maintenance to the respondent no. 1, in accordance with the order dated 31-8-2013, as interim maintenance, notwithstanding that the order has been set aside. Application partly allowed.