JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - CRM No.28913 of 2015 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 20 days in filing the revision petition, is condoned. CRR (F) No.234 of 2015 1. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner Rameshwar against the judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shakuntla wife of present petitioner and minor children Sunita and Vishal, filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that Shakuntla married with Rameshwar about 10 years back. Out of their wedlock, two children namely Sunita and Vishal were born. Huge amount was spent on the marriage and valuable gifts were given. Soon after the marriage, respondent-wife found that petitioner is a dead drunkard and master of bad vices and he started harassing, humiliating and maltreating the respondent under the influence of liquor. In the month of August 2010, respondent and her minor children were turned out of the matrimonial house. It is also stated that respondent filed the complaint under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 504 and 323 IPC. It is the case of Shakuntla that Rameshwar is able bodied person and he is earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month by running a Kiryana shop and doing agricultural work. 3. In the written statement, respondent (present petitioner) denied the allegations and stated that brothers of Shakuntla along with 8-10 persons came to his house and they broke the household articles and took her with them. He also stated that present respondent is earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing the work of sewing and embroidery whereas he is 70% handicapped and unable to do any work. 4. The Court below after appreciating the evidence of PW-1 Shakuntla and RW-1 Rameshwar, assessed the income of Rameshwar as Rs.9,000/- per month and only Rs.2,000/- has been awarded to Shakuntla wife of Rameshwar and application of the minors under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 5. This is a revision petition and in the revision petition, the petitioner is to show that how the findings given by the Court below are perverse or illegal. 5. This is a revision petition and in the revision petition, the petitioner is to show that how the findings given by the Court below are perverse or illegal. The Court below held that present petitioner has proved that he is 70% handicapped but it is in the evidence as well as admitted by the counsel for the revision petition that with Shakuntla, it was second marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner had already two children from earlier marriage and two children were with Shakuntla and they all were residing in the house. There is nothing on the record as to who was maintaining earlier this family of six persons. No answer is given by the counsel for the petitioner. If the revision petitioner is not earning a single penny, then how, he was maintaining two children from the earlier marriage and two children which were born from Shakuntla, who were residing with him. Nowhere the present petitioner in the reply has stated as to what he is doing and what is his income. Definitely in view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is earning the amount from which he was maintaining such a big family but this material fact has been concealed. So adverse inference is to be drawn against the present petitioner that he is concealing his income. 6. Only Rs.2000/- has been granted to Shakuntla respondent-wife, which in no way, can be held as excessive. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on record that due to disability, he cannot earn anything. Further, the petitioner has not shown that from which part of his body he is 70% handicapped. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar is correct, as per evidence, law and does not require any interference from this Court. 8. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. ————————