JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a husband whereas respondent No. 1 is his wife. Respondent No. 2-State is a formal party, since dispute is regarding maintenance of the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard learned advocate Mr. P.J. Kanabar for the petitioner at length, so also learned advocate Mr. Tolia for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The petitioner - husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 by the Principal Judge of Family Court, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 130 of 2013. By such impugned judgment and order, the Family Court has while allowing the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code preferred by respondent No. 1 - wife, directed the present petitioner to pay her an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of such application being 09.02.2011. The Family Court has also directed the petitioner - husband to pay Rs. 1000/- towards cost of such proceedings. Therefore, prima facie at this stage it is to be recollected that now when Courts are empowered to award expenses of such proceedings, the order to pay only Rs. 1000/- towards expenses for such proceedings, which was dragged for more than 4 years is certainly a meagre amount and thereby, the Family Court has awarded only token amount towards cost of such litigation to the wife. 3. This revision is filed in the month of September 2015 and during pendency of this revision application, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only pursuant to order dated 09.10.2015 though arrears of maintenance would be more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4. Thereafter, on joint request by the parties, matter was also referred to Mediation Centre by an order dated 26.10.2015. 4.1 However, Registry has received communication dated 05.12.2015 from the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority forwarding report of mediation of Gujarat High Court Mediation Centre that parties have failed to resolve their dispute amicably and, therefore, mediation fails. 5. During arguments, learned advocate Mr. Kanabar has read out several parts of deposition to emphasize that wife is at fault and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance and alternatively he has emphasized that petitioner is not earning such a handsome amount as believed by the Family Court, so as to pay the amount of Rs. 5. During arguments, learned advocate Mr. Kanabar has read out several parts of deposition to emphasize that wife is at fault and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance and alternatively he has emphasized that petitioner is not earning such a handsome amount as believed by the Family Court, so as to pay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife. For the purpose, petitioner has filed paper-book contending application for maintenance, its reply as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Family Court by both the sides. 6. In general, such proceedings are to be dealt with in summary manner and, therefore, as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in AIR 2015 SC 554 , it would not be necessary for the appellate or revisional Court to enter into minute details regarding dispute between the parties considering the fact that provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is basically for immediate requirement of the deserted wife and non - earning children to be maintained by the husband or father respectively, irrespective of any other issues between them. Considering the fact that petitioner has relied upon several parts of evidence and when this is a first revision against original order of maintenance, it would be necessary to at least verify the basic facts, so as to consider that whether ingredients of Section 125 of the Code is satisfied or not and that whether respondent - wife is entitled to an order of maintenance in her favour or not. Above restrictions in such proceedings are obvious because of the fact that practically the matrimonial dispute between the parties need to be resolved in appropriate proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, their inter se dispute, its reasons or responsibility for such dispute are not much material in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code. 7. For the purpose, though law is well settled that when petitioner is keen to get rid of such order by arguing on all counts, it would be necessary to recollect the provisions of the Code which empowers the wife, children and parents to get maintenance. Though such discussion is there in several reported cases, the present petitioner who is otherwise a Charted Accountant shall realize his responsibility by reading such provisions. 8. Though such discussion is there in several reported cases, the present petitioner who is otherwise a Charted Accountant shall realize his responsibility by reading such provisions. 8. The Code of Criminal Procedure has a separate chapter IX regarding maintenance of wife, children and parents. Section 125 in such chapter reads as under: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this subsection, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct : Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] [(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's d [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be], remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.-If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an d [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be], from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order." 8.1 The bare reading of the section makes it clear that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, the competent Court, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife as such Court deems fit and to pay the same to such person as the Court may from time to time direct. After amendment of Section 125 with effect from 24.09.2001, the competent Court may, during pendency of the proceedings regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife and the expenses of such proceedings, which Court considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Court may from time to time direct. Such amendment also makes it clear that an application for monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings shall, as far as possible be disposed off within 60 days from the date of service of notice of the application to such person. 8.2 Therefore, the provisions of such section are quite clear that if husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife and so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is a discretion of the Court; to grant maintenance which Court thinks fit. 8.2 Therefore, the provisions of such section are quite clear that if husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife and so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is a discretion of the Court; to grant maintenance which Court thinks fit. The restrictions upon wife to get maintenance is only three fold; (1) She may not be entitled to maintenance, if she is able to maintain herself, (2) if she is living in adultery and (3) she is not willing to live with her husband i.e. she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause or even when they are living separately by mutual consent. Therefore, in absence of any such reasons wife is entitled to maintenance. 9. Whereas so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, now though amount of maintenance is not restricted, because of judicial pronouncement by the Honorable Supreme Court of India and thereby because of settled legal position, the amount of maintenance would generally depend upon earnings or earning capacity of the husband and reasonable requirement of the wife not only to survive as a human being but to live with dignity if not in equal luxurious condition as that of husband. Therefore, after the amendment of 24.09.2001, now there is no ceiling on amount of maintenance that may be awarded under such proceedings. 10. In view of above settled legal position, which is proved by catena of decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court, now if we scrutinize the record and proceedings, it becomes clear that husband has not only neglected and refused to maintain the respondent - wife but has tried his level best to avoid to maintain the wife without any valid cause or reason. 11. So far as submission and evidence on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, all those factual disputes are not much material if it does not confirm or prove any of the ground, for which maintenance can be avoided viz. (1) capacity of the wife to maintain herself or (2) refusal to live with husband without any valid reason. 12. Out of all such defence, there is no allegation that respondent is living in adultery or they are living separately by mutual consent. Whereas, there is no evidence to prove that respondent wife is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. 12. Out of all such defence, there is no allegation that respondent is living in adultery or they are living separately by mutual consent. Whereas, there is no evidence to prove that respondent wife is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Therefore, the only defence which remains with the husband is limited to the effect that wife has refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason in order to avoid payment of maintenance. 13. If we peruse the record, I do not find any evidence in any manner whatsoever to prove that wife is not ready to reside with the husband or she has refused to live with the husband without any sufficient reason. 14. The record shows that it is undisputed fact that parties have got married on 11.12.2009 and thereafter wife has started to reside with the husband at Rajkot. Whereas, wife has pleaded and deposed before the trial Court that in the family of her in-laws i.e. in the family of the present petitioner husband, his sister aged 41 years is unmarried and residing with them and she is dominating the family and, therefore, even wife has to behave and stay as per her desire. It is further stated by the wife that even for routine meal and other food and for routine dress to be used by her, the ultimate decision would be only of her sister-in-law, who is unmarried. It is also stated that she was not allowed to talk to her parents even on phone and that in all such ill-treatment by in laws petitioner - husband was supporting his family members and creating issue with the wife and abusing her and pressurizing her to remain in control of his sister. It is also contended in clear words by the wife that her sister-in-law i.e. sister of the petitioner used to ask them to get up from their room even during midnight and directed them to stay in separate room without any reason, just to make it clear that wife has not brought sufficient gift at the time of marriage. It is also contended that petitioner and his family members were asking for huge amount and torturing the wife both physically and mentally. It is also contended that petitioner and his family members were asking for huge amount and torturing the wife both physically and mentally. It is also contended that at the time of marriage, her parents have given gifts of gold and silver as well as other household material as per their capacity and custom of their community. But, when she has to go to her parents' house after marriage, she was allowed to take only three pairs of clothes and all the ornaments and other properties were detained by the petitioner - husband and his family and it is lying with them. 15. So far as such allegations are concerned, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in rebuttal, it becomes clear that these reasons are sufficient for wife to stay separately from her in laws and to claim maintenance when husband has failed to take care of her and to stay with her by maintaining her dignity. It is settled legal position that physical or even mental cruelty is certainly a ground to remain away from the husband with separation and it would be a sufficient reason for wife to refuse to live with the husband. In that case, wife is certainly entitled to maintenance. The record shows that petitioner husband has pleaded that, in fact, there is no mental or physical torture and that he has tried to settle the dispute and to keep the wife with him but wife has not agreed to stay with him. However, if we peruse the evidence of the wife it becomes clear that wife has narrated all her difficulties and ill-treatment by the husband, whereas during her cross-examination when she has admitted that after the marriage on first occasion she has gone to her parents house with her brother on her own, the husband is trying to take advantage of his smartness to read over such line isolated and to plead that she has deserted him on her own and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Similar is the situation regarding admission by the wife that it is true that she has not complained about her physical and mental torture, when she was with the husband at his house. Similar is the situation regarding admission by the wife that it is true that she has not complained about her physical and mental torture, when she was with the husband at his house. It is known position that at least in Indian society till date except in exceptional cases, it is difficult for woman to oppose and to file a complaint against in-laws when she is all alone at the house of in laws. Whereas, so far as suggestion that petitioner has taken all the steps to keep her with him, while wife has denied such suggestion and, therefore, only because of such situation the wife has instead of telling lie when admitted certain facts as disclosed herein above, it cannot be believed that there is no physical or mental torture at all. It is quite obvious that there is no evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the wife regarding her torture by her in-laws including present petitioner. Whereas in further cross-examination conducted on 04.02.2012, petitioner has gone to the extent to alleging that, wife has given a threat to kill him. However, it is also settled legal position that false allegation would also to be treated and considered as mental torture and, therefore, if at all after deposing about physical and mental torture and after answering the question of cross examination if wife says that she does not want to go with the husband even if he wants to take her back, it cannot be said that this one sentence would disentitle her to claim maintenance. It is quite clear and obvious that wife has categorically deposed about physical and mental torture by her in laws including petitioner and there is nothing in his cross - examination to prove that there was no mental or physical torture upon her. The record shows that even before initiating such proceedings for the maintenance, in fact wife has served the notice through her advocate to the husband for settlement and to declare that whether he wants to keep the wife with him or not. If at all petitioner husband wants to stay with the wife, he would have initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal right when wife has issued a notice on 20.12.2010 and filed present petition for maintenance, so as to prove his intention. If at all petitioner husband wants to stay with the wife, he would have initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal right when wife has issued a notice on 20.12.2010 and filed present petition for maintenance, so as to prove his intention. It is also quite clear and obvious that legal remedy against such proceedings for maintenance is only in the form of a decree of conjugal rights because as per provision of law, the husband can avoid the order of maintenance, if there is decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour and even thereafter if wife does not agree to stay with him. 16. Therefore, to get rid against the order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, when other remedy is available in statute in form of filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in absence of taking resources of such statute, it could not be said that husband is ready and willing to keep the wife with him. In other words, practically now husband has to prove through such proceedings that he is entitled to avoid payment of maintenance and, therefore, if he has not done so, his explanation or denial against the allegation by the wife regarding torture, would not be enough and sufficient to avoid order of maintenance in favour of the wife. 17. As against that, if we peruse the deposition of husband, on the contrary, now it becomes clear that there is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and it would be sufficient for the wife to refuse to stay with the husband who has not bothered to keep proper relation with her. The petitioner has categorically admitted in his cross - examined that he had never taken any step for restitution, whereas wife has served him a notice for restitution but he did not answer it or did not resolve the dispute to stay together. Therefore, so far as right of the wife to get maintenance is concerned, the record shows that there is certainly several dispute between the husband and wife and husband has never bothered to resolve the dispute except making some efforts to show that he is trying to resolve the dispute by discussion of the same in presence of some community people. At the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that practically in such proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, such minute details are not much material when there is allegation regarding ill-treatment by the in-laws and there is no action by the husband to with regard to restitution of conjugal rights by proper legal steps i.e. either by calling the wife, when he is getting the notice for the purpose or by filing petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, so far as first issue regarding liability of husband to pay maintenance is in favour of the wife and, therefore, there is no scope or reason to set aside the order of maintenance and thereby to refuse the award of maintenance to the wife. 18. Then comes the issue regarding consideration of amount of maintenance that can be awarded to the wife. For the purpose, law is well settled whereby now it is clear that the maintenance does not mean only a meal for livelihood of deserted wife but it includes every reasonable requirement including basic amenities of the life viz. Medical expenditure, transportation etc. similarly so far as amount of maintenance is concerned, it would generally depend upon the requirement of the wife so also earning and earning capacity of the husband. 19. So far as earning capacity is concerned, it is admitted position that husband is Chartered Accountant and working as such but unfortunately though a person dealing with the subject of accounts and more particularly income, expenditure and saving tax etc as his primary job, the petitioner husband has miserably failed to disclose his proper and correct income before the Family Court. Petitioner has also even failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his income. It quite clear and obvious that petitioner could have proved his income by statement of account and income tax return. It cannot be ignored that practically this Court has called upon all such petitioner husband during argument of revision petition to produce on record proper evidence about their income of income-tax return, which can be available only with the husband. However, unfortunately most of the husbands so also present petitioner has selected not to disclose his correct income by disclosing and producing income tax return in time. However, now petitioner has came forward by filing Criminal Misc. However, unfortunately most of the husbands so also present petitioner has selected not to disclose his correct income by disclosing and producing income tax return in time. However, now petitioner has came forward by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 14961 of 2016 on 23.06.2016 i.e. after conclusive arguments in present revision on 20.06.2016 to produce income tax return as an additional evidence, thereby seeking the permission to file such additional evidence on record, which was otherwise available with him, but he has never bothered to file it either before the Family Court or even in this revision petition until hearing is concluded, when he realized that in absence of such documents Court would presume his income based upon the facts disclosed by the wife or any other evidence that may be available on record. It is settled legal position that practically it is not only expected but it is legal duty of a person to disclose the facts, which is in his knowledge before the Court when such fact or information is vital or material to decide such issue or Court proceedings and, therefore, if someone fails to disclose the information or facts which is purely within his knowledge more particularly when it is pertaining to his own income, non disclosure of such information would certainly empower the Court to draw adverse inference against such person. Thus in absence of his disclosure whatever is brought on record on this issue i.e. regarding his income by the other-side is either correct or real or actual income of the husband must be much more then what is disclosed on record and therefore he does not want to disclose his correct income on record. In view of such legal position when respondent - wife has averted in clear words that petitioner husband is a Chartered Accountant and auditing account of several banks as well as trusts and holding his office in the prime location in Rajkot City and earning Rs. In view of such legal position when respondent - wife has averted in clear words that petitioner husband is a Chartered Accountant and auditing account of several banks as well as trusts and holding his office in the prime location in Rajkot City and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and that he does not have liability to maintain any other person because his father i.e. father in law of the wife is retired government officer and thereby getting huge amount as pension; and after such specific disclosure by the wife if husband does not come forward to produce his evidence regarding real income and simply relies upon cross examination of the wife so also his own deposition wherein he has practically failed to disclose his income at all, then there is reason for the Family Court to presume his income based upon his earning activities. Whereas wife has examined her brother as exhibit 17 wherein he has also categorically deposed on oath before the Court that petitioner is having his office in Heerapanna Complex on Yagnik Road in Rajkot which is posh area and that he had been to such office where several staff is working for the petitioner since he is practicing Chartered Accountant for years together and having work of several banks and other institutes. It is also stated by the witness that when they have inquired about the income of the petitioner, the petitioner and his father have categorically stated that petitioner is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. If we check cross examination of this witness though his examination in chief is restricted to the issue regarding income of the petitioner, there is practically no cross examination on any such issue except formal denial that whatever stated is not correct, though he was cross examined at length on several other issues regarding matrimonial disputes between the parties and his role and usual activities. But in any case, there is no evidence by the petitioner - husband to confirm or prove on record that what is pleaded and stated on oath by the wife and her witness is not true or correct. On the contrary, petitioner has simply stated that he is earning Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- as Chartered Accountant. But in any case, there is no evidence by the petitioner - husband to confirm or prove on record that what is pleaded and stated on oath by the wife and her witness is not true or correct. On the contrary, petitioner has simply stated that he is earning Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- as Chartered Accountant. Petitioner has also examined his father as his witness wherein he has came forward with altogether a new story that because of non confirmation of marriage proposal of the brother of the wife, her parents are annoyed and they have created such issue and wife does not want to join her matrimonial house without any reason. Now he is coming with a new story regarding discussion and talk in presence of community people and produced audio conversation in the form of CD Rom on record with its transcript. However, in absence of a proof that who has recorded such conversation and who has transcripted it, the evidentiary value of such documents are questionable. Even if we peruse such transcript, conversation confirms the fact of existence of matrimonial dispute between the parties. In that case the only remedy available to the husband is to get a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour if at all he wants to avoid his responsibility to maintain his wife. It is undisputed fact that wife has produced on record photo of the office of the petitioner husband in his own name which is A.R. Thakkar & Company, Chartered Accountant. One more surprising and disturbing fact is found from record, though such proceedings are to be completed in summary manner, the R & P shows that practically it was proceeded with like a civil suit and thereby it took almost 4 years and 6 months for the Family Court to decide an application for maintenance and surprisingly because of the lengthy proceedings and unwarranted defence by the husband when wife has filed an application for interim maintenance on 20.03.2015, unfortunately the Family Court has rejected such application on 26.06.2015 considering that petitioner herein is ready to conduct the proceedings, at the earliest. 20. Therefore, now the fact remains that the husband has allowed the trial Court to presume his income and, therefore, when trial Court has considered his income as Rs. 60,000/- against the claim of wife that he is earning Rs. 20. Therefore, now the fact remains that the husband has allowed the trial Court to presume his income and, therefore, when trial Court has considered his income as Rs. 60,000/- against the claim of wife that he is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and considering overall circumstances awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards monthly maintenance of wife after detailed discussion of evidence on record in a lengthy judgment of 25 pages, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in such order so as to interfere with it either by allowing the petition and thereby to quash and set aside the impugned order or even to reduce the amount of maintenance when petitioner has failed to prove his income properly. 21. It would be relevant to refer following decisions on all such issues which are raised in this revision petition; (1) Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 ; (2) Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in AIR 2014 SC 869 ; (3) Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 ; (4) Saygo Bai vs. cheeru Bajrangi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1557 ; (5) Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 ; (6) Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006 ; (7) Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain vs. Veena Kaushal reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 22. Considering the lengthly arguments by both the sides and above discussion when petitioner husband has realized that there is no escape for him but to disclose his income, after completion of arguments of revision on 20.06.2016, when matter was kept for judgment because of lengthly arguments, petitioner has after three days i.e. on 23.06.2016 preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 14961 of 2016 for additional evidence wherein this Court has ordered to decide the same with the main petition since main petition was already taken up for dictation of judgment. 23. On perusal of such application now it becomes clear that even after such marathon proceedings, petitioner who is Chartered Accountant has an audacity to file copies of few income tax returns with such application. The fact remains that additional evidence can be allowed only if such evidence was either not available or not traceable or if it is subsequent development after the impugned judgment, but not for the purpose of filling up the lacuna by any litigant. The fact remains that additional evidence can be allowed only if such evidence was either not available or not traceable or if it is subsequent development after the impugned judgment, but not for the purpose of filling up the lacuna by any litigant. The fact remains that the proceedings before the trial Court has been dragged for more than 4 years, the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant, therefore there is reason to believe that he knows well that statement of account produced with the income tax return would be basic documents to consider income of any person when he fails to produce any such documents before the Family Court now such documents cannot be allowed to be produced at the stage of revision before the High Court. It is also quite clear and obvious that allowing of additional evidence would require to extend reasonable opportunity to the other side to verify, scrutinize and to rebut such evidence. In view of such position allowing to produce such evidence would result into denovo trial by the Family Court wherein husband is able to drag it for more than 4 years and, therefore, it is not advisable and not permissible in law to allow such documentary evidence to be taken on record as an additional evidence. Whereas it is also settled legal position that now such documentary evidence though it is public record cannot be taken into consideration when it is not produced before the trial Court though available to the petitioner. 24. There is one more reason for denial of such prayer in this petition i.e. provisions of Section 127 of the Code which entitles a person for modification of order if at all there is change in circumstances and if he is able to prove his case in accordance with law in such proceedings 25. In view of above facts and circumstances I do not find any substance even in this misc. application for additional evidence or in revision petition in absence of any irregularity, illegality of perverseness or arbitrariness, in any manner, whatsoever, so as to allow them. Therefore, revision petition and misc. applications are dismissed being devoid of merits. R & P be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.