JUDGMENT S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 wife. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule one behalf of respondent No. 1 State. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashvin M. Panchal for the applicant-husband and learned advocate Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt for the respondent-wife. 3. Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.05.2013 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2012, whereby appeal of the present applicant is dismissed confirming the judgment and order dated 13.10.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 459 of 2009 by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 22, whereby applicant was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards monthly maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rs. 5000/- towards residential accommodation under Section 19(6) of the Act from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2009. 4. Perused the record as well as additional documents produced by the applicant-husband which are other-wise not produced before the trial Court, since it pertains to the statement of the income of the husband. 5. The grievance of the applicant is mainly for the quantum of amount of the maintenance, in as much as, he has submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider his income of the year 2009, which was only Rs. 15,000/- while awarding maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife. It is further submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 11.02.2000 and wife has left the house on 31.03.2008 and though they were residing separately from their parents, she filed an application under the Act on 05.10.2009. Therefore, when salary of the applicant was only Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2009, the order to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards maintenance and Rs. 5000/- towards residential accommodation from the year 2009 by impugned judgment on 13.10.2012 is not proper. 5.1 It is also submitted that wife has filed several applications and complaints including complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code before the competent Court, but since all such applications were false and frivolous, applicant was acquitted from all such charges and that applicant has not defendant is not defaulted in payment of maintenance, as per impugned order, though his earning capacity is not considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to pay 1/3rd amount of his salary and alternatively; it would be appropriate to remand the matter back, so as to allow the applicant to prove his income before the trial Court. 5.2 Since applicant is praying that trial Court has not considered his income of the year 2009, the record shows that applicant has not produced evidence about his income for the year 2009. Therefore, practically applicant wants to improve his case by filing proper documentary evidence on record if matter is remanded back. It is also certain and clear that applicant has already disclosed his income at the time of deposition. 5.3 It is further submitted that all the witnesses are relatives of the wife and that wife has not came with clean hands before the Court in such application and considering the conduct of the wife and other liability of the applicant i.e. applicant has to maintain his father also, it is requested to extend some relief in quantum of maintenance. 6. Whereas learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt has submitted that there are concurrent findings on facts by both, trial Court and first appellate Court and, therefore, now when scope in such revision application is other-wise limited, there is no substance in the revision application, whereby in fact applicant wants to prove certain new facts for modification of impugned order. It is also submitted that in fact conduct of the applicant is to be looked into, though he is arguing and claiming his liability towards his father, in his deposition before the trial Court he has stated on oath that his father was government servant and is getting pension. There is also specific admission that he has no other liability. It is further submitted that, the dispute arose between the parties because wife could not conceive a child for 8 years and that at present father of the wife has also expired and, therefore, she is shelter less and, therefore, he supports the impugned order. 7. There is also specific admission that he has no other liability. It is further submitted that, the dispute arose between the parties because wife could not conceive a child for 8 years and that at present father of the wife has also expired and, therefore, she is shelter less and, therefore, he supports the impugned order. 7. It is settled legal position that when there are two concurrent findings by trial Court and first appellate Court, the scrutiny of evidence can be done only for limited purpose that whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, but not for appreciation of evidence afresh, so as to arrive at a different decision and conclusion, only because, some other decision can be possible. As against such legal position even facts are quite clear and obvious, in as much as, though husband is claiming that the trial Court has not considered his income in the relevant year i.e. 2009, the fact remains that when applicant who is now serving as a Head Master and was serving as a teacher at the relevant point of time, while adducing his evidence before the trial Court has proved his salary for a particular month at exhibit 47 by producing salary slip only. Practically nobody has restrained him to produce his entire statement of month wise income from the year 2009 till the date of deposition, so as to enable the trial Court to decide a reasonable and suitable amount. Therefore, there is not a case that applicant has not a chance to prove his income, but it is clear and certain that applicant has proved his income as more than Rs. 33,000/- at the relevant time and, therefore, now he cannot find fault with the impugned order and claim remand of the matter. Therefore there is no substance in the Revision Application. 7.1 However, considering the fact that these are social issues and quasi-judicial proceedings and even though there is no application for considering the additional evidence either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court, some certified copies of monthly salary are produced on record, such statements are taken on record. On scrutiny of such statements, it is clear that from October 2009 salary of the applicant respectfully for every another month is not less than Rs. 29,000/-, Rs. 26,000/-, Rs. 22,000/-, Rs. 27,000/-, Rs. 33,000/-, Rs. On scrutiny of such statements, it is clear that from October 2009 salary of the applicant respectfully for every another month is not less than Rs. 29,000/-, Rs. 26,000/-, Rs. 22,000/-, Rs. 27,000/-, Rs. 33,000/-, Rs. 32,000/- for the year starting from October 2009 till September 2010. Therefore, minimum income during the year is Rs. 22,672/- and maximum income is Rs. 33,754/-. Though applicant has tried to argue that it includes some arrears, I have taken care of the statement before recording above figures because months in which arrears is received are omitted, when total salary is more than Rs. 40,000/- in September 2009 and more than Rs. 69,000/- in November 2010. Therefore, practically average income of the applicant even in the year 2009 is Rs. 25,000/- 7.2 In view of such fact, when income is practically increased by way of increase in Dearness Allowance and when in the next year i.e. 2011-2012, the income is increased to more than Rs. 30,000/- and in the year 2012-2013 more than Rs. 35,000/- I do not see any reason to interfere with impugned order to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- only for couple of months where also the aggregate average income was more than Rs. 25,000/-. Needless to say that there is no thumb rule for calculating maintenance as submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that 1/3rd of the total income may be granted and another thing that if few thousand more are paid by husband throughout the period of 4 years then husband is neither obliging wife nor it can be said as any irregularity or illegality. It cannot be ignored that delay in payment of such amount of maintenance is generally disturbing the life of deserted wife, in as much as, she must has to manage her livelihood throughout such period though husband is earning and responsible to maintain her. 8. Therefore, there is no substance in the revision application and hence same is dismissed. Thereby now applicant has to pay the monthly maintenance as per impugned order only instead of direction by order dated 13.08.2014 in this revision application, since revision application is already dismissed. Rule is discharged.