JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Both these Revision Petitions are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2015 by the Family Court No. 2 of Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2464/11 and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. The revision No. 737/15 is preferred by the original applicant in such Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2464/11 who are wife and two minor children of the original respondents, who has preferred revision No. 64/16. By impugned judgment, the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- towards maintenance of wife and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance of minor son Anam, whereas Rs. 4,000/- for minor son Arsh and thereby, total amount of maintenance which is to be paid by the husband is Rs. 13,000/-. Wife and minor sons have therefore challenged the order for enhancement of amount of maintenance submitting that the amount of maintenance awarded by the impugned judgment and order is insufficient and that husband is earning substantive amount and holding good property and leading luxurious life in Mumbai and therefore, he is capable to pay substantive amount towards maintenance. Whereas husband has challenged the order contending that wife is also serving or at least running pre-school classes in the name of 'Little Champ' in the residential house owned by the husband and therefore, when she has not to spend for residential accommodation and when she is earning by running pre-school, she is not entitled to maintenance. 2. I have heard both the Ld. Advocates - Mr. R.J. Goswami for the husband and Mr. M.M. Tirmizi for the wife and children so also Ld. A.P.P. for State being formal party. I have also perused the record available with the petition so also compilation filed by parties. 3. 2. I have heard both the Ld. Advocates - Mr. R.J. Goswami for the husband and Mr. M.M. Tirmizi for the wife and children so also Ld. A.P.P. for State being formal party. I have also perused the record available with the petition so also compilation filed by parties. 3. At the outset, it is to be recollected that this is a proceeding u/s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance of wife and children and therefore, though it is to be proceeded in summary manner, it is also clear and certain that when either of the party is keen to prove particular fact so as to either get a favourable order in his or her favour or to get rid of any order against him for maintenance, such fact which is within best control of such litigant should not only be disclosed and pleaded in proper manner, but needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt so as to avoid presumption of such fact by the trial court or the revisional court. 4. On perusal of the record, it becomes clear that, there is specific evidence and in fact, admission by the husband that he is earning Rs. 38,000/- per month since he is serving as Chief Executive Officer in Modern Educational, Social and Cultural Organization from where, he is getting Rs. 34,000/- as a take away salary after deductions. Therefore, even if the version of the pleading by the wife regarding his income between Rs. 62,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- and his life style being luxurious may not be considered for deciding the quantum of maintenance, it becomes clear that if the husband is having salary of Rs. 34,000/-, then there is nothing wrong in the impugned order by which practically, meager amount is awarded for three living persons. If we compare the disbursement or distribution of income of the husband, then practically, out of total income, only 40% amount is awarded for maintenance of three living persons and thereby, 60% of the salary is kept for livelihood of the husband and therefore, it can never be said that, the amount of maintenance is on higher side and therefore, there is no reason or substance to interfere with or modify the impugned order so far as the reduction in amount of maintenance is concerned. For such determination, it cannot be ignored that, father of the husband is serving in O.N.G.C. and retired as Mechanical Engineer and they are having their residential properties both in Ahmedabad and in Mumbai and therefore, when other brothers of the petitioner are also earning good amount by serving in Qatar, practically there is no other responsibility upon the husband and therefore, calculation of quantum of maintenance as aforesaid need not be interfered in any manner whatsoever. 5. As against that, if we peruse the defence of the husband that since wife is earning by running pre-school classes from her residence, the fact remains that though there is such pleading and though few xerox of some pamphlets regarding such pre-school classes is produced on record, both before the trial court as well as before this court, the husband has miserably failed to prove such fact by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. On the contrary, evidences of witness on record categorically confirms that no such classes are being run by the wife. The overall evidence of all the witnesses is disclosing minute details of difference between the parties so also instances between them which goes to show that, practically, there is grave matrimonial dispute and thereby, if wife is unable to maintain herself and if she has reason to live away from the husband for more than one reasons, then wife is certainly entitled to maintenance. It is also settled legal position that, even if wife is well educated and capable to earn or was earning in the past, if at the time of an order of maintenance, she is not earning anything or earning meager amount or because of the responsibility of grow up children, if she left the earning activities and thereby not earning during litigation, then it cannot be said that, only because of her past activity or qualification, she must earn her livelihood and thereby, she is not entitled to maintenance. In view of such legal position, if at all the husband wants to get rid of an order of payment of maintenance to the wife, he has to prove by cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt that either wife is actually earning sufficiently to maintain herself or she has willfully left the earning activity just to get the maintenance from the husband. 6. In the present case, there is no such evidence except some pleadings. 6. In the present case, there is no such evidence except some pleadings. However, based upon such pleading or even prima-facie evidence, there cannot be a presumption in favour of the husband and against the wife, more particularly, because of the fact that wife is aged and having two minor children and therefore, it is quite clear and obvious that, she has to take care of minors and therefore, so far as maintenance in favour of minors is concerned, practically there is no evidence in favour of the husband cum father so as to interfere with or modify such order and thereby order of maintenance in favour of the wife is only for Rs. 4,000/- which is quite meager amount during these days and therefore, even if we consider that, there is some evidence in favour of the husband to prove that wife is actually earning something and residing in the house owned by the husband, then also it is to be considered that after all, she has to maintain not only herself but two minor children. Therefore, her income is not sufficient for maintenance of three living persons, she is certainly entitled to reasonable amount of maintenance from the husband and therefore, there is no substance in the revision petition No. 737/2015. 7. So far as the revision petition No. 162/16 for wife for enhancement of amount of maintenance is concerned, the same set of discussion and evidence makes it clear that, there is some evidence to show that, wife was not housewife throughout her life as a married woman or even before that and thereby, when she was a working woman and when she is residing in the house owned by the husband and thereby, she has not to spend for residential accommodation, I do not see any reason or substance to modify the impugned order only regarding quantum of maintenance for the simple reason that except clear admission by the husband regarding his income being 34,000/-, there is no other evidence on record so also there is no evidence on record that what is the actual necessity and requirements of the wife. 8. 8. Therefore, considering the fact that, if at all, wife is keen to get more amount of maintenance, then she should come forward with cogent and reliable evidence on all counts to prove not only the income but properties and standard of living of the husband so as to enable the court to award reasonable amount of maintenance based upon such evidence but merely because wife is claiming more maintenance both in main petition before the Magistrate or even in this revision, in absence of requisite evidence, there is no reason to enhance the amount of maintenance already awarded by the Family Court which has taken care of all facts and circumstances on record. It is also clear that, based upon best available evidence either side can file u/s. 127 before the trial court for modification of such order and therefore, when alternative remedy is available and when there is neither irregularity nor illegality in the impugned order, I do not find any substance in any of the revision so as to interfere with the impugned order in such revisional jurisdiction. 9. For my determination, I am relying upon the following decisions. "(1) Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 ; (2) Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in AIR 2014 SC 869 ; (3) Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 ; (4) Saygo Bai v. cheeru Bajrangi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1557 ; (5) Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 ; (6) Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006 ; (7) Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 " 10. In view of above facts, circumstances and discussion, both revision petitions are dismissed.