JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pathan appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandaya for respondent - State. Perused the record. 2. The applicant herein being husband has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.296 of 2013 passed by Family Court, Bhavnagar whereby such Court has awarded an amount of Rs.8000/- in favour of the respondent no.2 – wife of the applicant and Rs.7000/- in favour of the respondent no.3 minor daughter of the couple. Considering the submissions of the applicant and available record and also the impugned order, it becomes clear that unfortunately applicant has failed to prove his income before the Trial Court and therefore, Trial Court has considered income of the applicant between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- while awarding maintenance as aforesaid. 3. However, there is reference in the impugned judgment that it is admitted by the applicant that he is paying income tax and sales tax. In view of such fact, it would have been appropriate for the Family Court to call upon the applicant to produce such documents instead of presuming his income while awarding the amount of maintenance in favour of wife and minor daughter, because ultimately, quantum of maintenance needs to be decided based upon earnings of husband and therefore, there is a possibility through documentary evidence to confirm the income of the husband. It would be appropriate for the husband also the Court to call for the relevant documents to be produced on record. 4. In view of above facts and circumstances, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to discuss minute details and disputes between the parties so as to avoid prejudice to either side, when matter requires to be remanded back to the Family Court and deciding it afresh after offering a reasonable opportunity to both the sides to produce relevant documents regarding income of the husband. However, when applicant – husband has been successful to drag the matter for more than five years and when wife and minor daughter certainly need maintenance, amount awarded by the impugned order needs to be continued as interim maintenance in favour of the wife and minor daughter. 5. However, when applicant – husband has been successful to drag the matter for more than five years and when wife and minor daughter certainly need maintenance, amount awarded by the impugned order needs to be continued as interim maintenance in favour of the wife and minor daughter. 5. In view of above facts and circumstances, let the matter be remanded back to the Family Court with a direction that to decide it afresh after offering reasonable opportunity to both the sides to prove their case or to rebut the evidence of other side. Therefore, revision application is partly allowed whereby impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 296 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside but with a direction that now Family Court shall decide such application afresh after offering reasonable opportunity to both the sides to prove their case so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned. Such exercise is to be completed expeditiously within six months without fail. Applicant shall continue to pay an amount of maintenance as per impugned order that is Rs.8000/- to respondent no.2 – wife of the applicant and Rs.7000/- to respondent no.3 - minor daughter till the Family Court decide such application as interim maintenance. It is made clear that applicant shall wipe out the arrears of maintenance within six months without fail.