ORDER : S.G SHAH, J. Heard Mr. P.V Patadiya, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for respondent no 3. 2. Nobody is present for the petitioner even in second call. The same was the situation on 03.08.2016 when this Court has observed that the matter needs to be dismissed for want of prosecution in absence of petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was ordered to be listed today. Today also nobody is present for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.06.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 466 of 2011 by the Family Court, Rajkot, whereby an application under Section 125 filed by the respondent has been allowed and petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- towards maintenance of respondent no. 1 being wife of the present petitioner and Rs. 750/- towards maintenance of respondent no. 2 their minor son. Thereby the fact remains that the impugned order is granting quite a meager amount of maintenance for two human beings i.e. total Rs. 2250/- only. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the petitioner has been represented by the advocate before the Family Court at Rajkot. It is to be reveled that he has defended the application preferred by the wife and minor son. The record also confirms that the petitioner has cross-examined the respondent-wife wherein he wants to confirm that since child is only about eight years old on the date of evidence, he is not going to school and therefore there is no expenditure or cost incurred to the wife for upbringing the child. However, the fact remains that on the contrary, the child upto 5 years needs more care and there may be more expenses to up bring such child. So far as earning activity of both the sides are concerned, as usual husband has avoided to disclose his earning activity so also his monthly income and tried to plead and prove that respondent-wife is earning Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3000/- by stitching work, whereas it is say of the petitioner before the trial court that he is earning only Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2000/- by doing stitching work. The respondent-wife contended that the petitioner is serving as Security Guard and earning Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3000/- by stitching work, whereas it is say of the petitioner before the trial court that he is earning only Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2000/- by doing stitching work. The respondent-wife contended that the petitioner is serving as Security Guard and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, whereby the trial court has presumed his income in absence of proper and reliable evidence to prove his case. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order because the law certainly permits the Court to presume the income of the husband, who is not disclosing the correct information. 4. On perusal of impugned judgment, it becomes clear that Family Court has taken care of all relevant evidence adduced before it and record shows that there is no irregularity or illegality in any manner whatsoever. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is also quite clear and obvious that an amount of Rs. 2250/- is absolutely a quite meager amount for two human beings and therefore there is no reason to interfere with in the impugned order. 5. It would be relevant to refer following decisions on all such issues which are raised in this revision petition; (1) Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 : AIR 2015 SC 2025 ; (2) Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 : AIR 2014 SC 869 ; (3) Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 : AIR 2014 SC 2875 ; (4) Saygo Bai v. cheeru Bajrangi reported in (2010) 13 SCC 762 : AIR 2011 SC 1557 ; (5) Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 : AIR 2008 SC 530 ; (6) Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 : AIR 2008 SC 3006 ; (7) Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70 : AIR 1978 SC 1807 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Revision Petition so as to interfere with in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.