JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand B. Gogia for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. N.L. Ramnani appearing for learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent No. 4 being a formal party. 2. The applicant herein is husband, whereas respondent No. 1 is his wife and respondents No. 2 and 3 are their minor children. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 by the Family Court of Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 478 of 2010 preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3 u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short) seeking maintenance. By such impugned judgment, the Family Court has considering the income of the applicant as Rs. 1,25,000/- p.m., awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs. 10,000/- each for two minor children, thereby awarding in total Rs. 50,000/- towards maintenance. 3. So far as the relation between the parties are concerned, it is undisputed fact and therefore, the only issue in the revision application is whether the amount of maintenance is proper or not, because the record categorically confirms that there is matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and it is also clear that wife is not working woman and thereby, she is unable to maintain herself so also the minor children. 4. This being a revision application, the Court has to simply verify that whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment so as to interfere with or to modify it or not. Thereby, though this is first revision after the impugned judgment by the Family Court, re-appreciation of entire evidence would not be proper when issue is pertaining to maintenance of deserted wife and children only, if there is no arbitrariness or perverseness and thereby, if there is no irregularity or illegality in any manner whatsoever, there is no reason to interfere with or to modify the same. Moreover, the quantum of maintenance is purely based upon the earning of the husband and requirement of the wife and minor children, so also based upon the standard of living and status of the parties and thereby, there is no rule of thumb that maintenance cannot be beyond certain limit or restricted to some upper limit in any manner whatsoever, more particularly after the amendment of Section 125 of the Code w.e.f. 24.9.2001 since, now, the upper limit of amount of maintenance has been omitted from the statute. It is for obvious reasons that an amount of Rs. 500/- is in any case not only meagre, but it may result into mockery of the judicial proceedings, considering the fact that because of devaluation of money, so also inflation and the standard of living, Rs. 500/- per person is absolutely inadequate amount for survival of a living person in these days. 5. Therefore, now, when there is no upper limit of awarding maintenance even in proceedings u/s. 125 of the Code, though the word "maintenance" is not defined in the Code, it is settled legal position that the word "maintenance" includes every requirement of the wife and children viz. lodging, boarding, medicines, transportation, education of children and thereby, practically, now, the maintenance to be awarded u/s. 125 of the Code would be same, which may be awarded in any other similar proceedings under different statutes viz. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 or The Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 or any other provision of law, which entitles the wife and minor to get maintenance. Thereby, the only restriction in the proceedings of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Code, would be to the effect that, at the most, though such proceedings are to be carried out in summary manner, the amount of maintenance may be determined based upon actual earnings of the husband or atleast his earning capacity and may be based upon the properties or wealth held by the husband, but not creating any right in such properties as permissible under the Domestic Violence Act or Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Therefore, at the most, it may not be for luxurious life by the wife and children, but it must be for living in similar status of the husband. Therefore, for e.g. if husband is having luxurious vehicles viz. Therefore, at the most, it may not be for luxurious life by the wife and children, but it must be for living in similar status of the husband. Therefore, for e.g. if husband is having luxurious vehicles viz. Mercedes Benz Car, BMW Car etc. though wife and children may not ask for or may not be entitled to luxurious car, but at the same time, they are certainly entitled to small car for transportation. This is just an example, but in any case, it is settled legal position that the quantum of maintenance would certainly be based upon the earnings or earning capacity of the husband, so also the basic requirement of the wife, which includes not only for food and lodging, but for everything. 6. In view of above discussion, if we peruse the facts and circumstances, so also evidence emerging from the record, it becomes clear that in the present case, the family of applicant - husband is using luxurious cars and therefore, wife and children is atleast entitled to good amount of maintenance rather than a meagre amount being awarded in terms of few thousand rupees, which is generally awarded in most of the cases, but such award are always in absence of proper cogent and reliable evidence regarding income or earning capacity of the husband. Whereas, in the present case, there is positive evidence that husband is doing business with his father and they are not only well to-do, but enjoying their life by utilizing luxurious items and vehicles and living high-standard life. As against that, what is pleaded and tried to be proved by the husband, to avoid to maintain wife and children, is to the effect that wife has studied upto B.Com and she is running tuition classes and she is having her separate income and therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. He is also relying upon the admission by the wife regarding her ignorance about the details of the business activities and business details of the husband, so also her admission regarding owning a car by her, and that in past, she was running tuition classes. However, that alone cannot be considered as an effective and conclusive evidence to refuse to pay the amount of maintenance. However, that alone cannot be considered as an effective and conclusive evidence to refuse to pay the amount of maintenance. On the contrary, as discussed herein above, if wife is having small car, and if husband is having a luxurious car, then, practically, husband does not have to provide a new car, but atleast the amount of maintenance would certainly include expense or cost of petrol/diesel and maintenance of such car. 7. It is also clear from evidence that husband has tried to hide his earning activity so also his income and he has not come forward with clear evidence regarding his income and therefore, I do not see any irregularity or illegality by the trial Court in holding that he must be earning Rs. 1,25,000/- p.m. considering the available evidence on record. If at all applicant is clear and certain that his income is not as has been presumed by the trial Court, then, he should have come forward with relevant documentary evidence. An attempt was made by the applicant - husband to prove that his yearly income is only Rs. 1,46,000/- by producing one I.T. Return, but trial Court has rightly observed that since it is a self-declaratory statement of the opponent and that too pending the trial, same cannot be considered as a reliable piece of evidence to confirm the income of the husband. Whereas, wife has categorically stated and deposed on oath that husband and his family members are dealing with manufacturing and selling of embroidery machines and he is earning Rs. 2 Lacs to Rs. 3 Lacs p.m. Thereby, when applicant - husband confirms that he is doing the job work of embroidery work, it is clear that he is doing some business and in that case, he should have come forward with proper and reliable evidence so as to disallow the trial Court to presume his income. Though applicant has tried to prove his Income-Tax Returns of previous years, he has not bothered to prove his income by proper and reliable evidence so as to believe that he is earning only Rs. 15,000/- p.m. 8. Though applicant has tried to prove his Income-Tax Returns of previous years, he has not bothered to prove his income by proper and reliable evidence so as to believe that he is earning only Rs. 15,000/- p.m. 8. In cross-examination the opponent - husband has admitted that he is residing with his father and that he has already filed Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce and therefore, it is certain and clear that he does not want to keep the wife and children; whereas, so far as the earning activity of his father and himself is concerned, though he admits that he is doing the business of selling and manufacturing embroidery machines, he does not want to disclose several details and even did not admit though proved on record by documentary evidence that from the partnership firm with his father, he has received an amount of Rs. 10,25,647/- in his personal account by one single transaction on 31.10.2009. He further states that he does not know as to how many properties he is holding, but in next breath, he has to admit that he holds more than 15 shops jointly with her mother's sister. He admits that his family is having fleet of cars viz. Mercedes Benz, Skoda, Corolla and Hyundai i-20 and that they are holding Sawlani Estate, comprising of 5000 Sq.Yds., though he is saying that it is in joint name. He also admits that his Bungalow is of 500 - 600 Sq.Yds. and that their factory is in two different sheds. He also admits that he does not know that in which school his son is studying, but has an audacity to say that the school fees is paid by him, without disclosing any proof. However, he also admits that school fees is Rs. 78,000/- p.a. All this evidence goes to show that applicant has enough income to pay reasonable and substantial amount of maintenance to the wife and children. It cannot be ignored that at Exh. 20, the applicant has filed an affidavit, wherein he has included his arguments and therein though there is reference of I.T. Returns for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 with some other documents, practically, those documents are thereafter never proved by the applicant on record and therefore, when any documents, which are simple xerox copies, and not proved on record of the trial Court, then, those documents cannot be looked into. 9. 9. As already stated, this being a revision application, there is limited scope of interference and more particularly, when applicant has not came forward with proper evidence to prove his income by producing statement of accounts and has instead produced self-declaratory statement of I.T. Returns, and more particularly, when he is residing with his father and when they both are having valuable properties and business and therefore, only because of education of wife, it cannot be stated that she is not entitled to maintenance or that she is able to maintain herself. 10. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, though total amount of Rs. 50,000/- may seem to be a good amount or higher amount of maintenance, practically, it is for three living persons, out of which respondent No. 2 is aged about 16 years and therefore, liability to maintain him would be for a limited period and therefore, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. However, it is made clear that both the parties are at liberty to apply for modification of such judgment before the trial Court, based upon the available evidence with them, either to prove their case or to disprove and rebut the case of other side for modification of such judgment as provided u/s. 127 of the Code. In that case, the concerned trial Court shall decide such application without being influenced by rejection of this revision application. 12. It would be relevant to refer following decisions on all such issues, which are raised in this revision application; "1. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 ; 2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 ; 3. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in AIR 2014 SC 869 ; 4. Saygo Bai v. Cheeru Bajrangi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1557 ; 5. Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006 and 6. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 ; 7. Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 ." 13. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the present revision application and same is dismissed. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.