JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta R. Vyas for the petitioner, Mr. Aakash R. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondent – State. Perused the record. 3. The Petitioner herein is wife and minor children of petitioner and respondent no.1 who is husband of petitioner no.1. 4. Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.9.2017 by the Family Court, Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No.166/2016 (Old No.516/2015) whereby Family Court has awarded amount of Rs.2,700/- towards maintenance of petitioner no.1 – wife and Rs.1,200/- towards petitioner no.2 – minor daughter of the couple. The petitioner herein has contended that though the income of the respondent is more than Rs.21,000/- in the month of October, 2016 and it has been increased after implementations of 7th Pay Commission, the amount of maintenance being Rs.3,900/- only for two living persons is certainly inadequate and to that extent, trial court has committed an error when trial court has, without discussing the income of the opponent though referred his pay slip and without discussing the reason for awarding only lessor amount as per impugned order, awarded such amount. On perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the salary of the petitioner is more than Rs.21,000/- in the month of October, 2016 since salary slip is produced at Exh.18 before the trial court. However, trial court has failed to disclose fact of such pay slip though pursuant to such salary slip it is observed that petitioner is having fixed income. The trial Court has also failed to discuss and disclose the reason for awarding only Rs.3,900/- for two living persons, when respondent-husband is getting more than Rs.21,000/-. It is also surprising to note that though salary slip of the petitioner is produced at Exh.18 before the trial court, the respondent has dared to deny that he is earning such income. However, the fact remains that such salary slip is not only physically produced on record and exhibited during evidence of the respondent wife but wife has called upon a witness from the employer of the respondent – husband and such witness namely; Bakula Govind Katar at Exh. 17 who is serving as a Junior Incharge with Pashchim Gujarat Vij Co. However, the fact remains that such salary slip is not only physically produced on record and exhibited during evidence of the respondent wife but wife has called upon a witness from the employer of the respondent – husband and such witness namely; Bakula Govind Katar at Exh. 17 who is serving as a Junior Incharge with Pashchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.; wherein respondent is also serving as an Electrical Assistant; has categorically deposed before the Court on oath that she has brought the record of salary of the present respondent who is serving since the year 2013 and confirm in services since 21.9.2016 and produced salary slip of October, 2016. She has also deposed that she is preparing such salary bills which is computerized and, therefore, no signature or stamps are required and that respondent husband is permanent employee of such Vij Company having employee Code No.17990 and he is getting gross salary of Rs.21,74328 Paisa per month. The respondent's advocate before the trial court has cross examined the petitioner at length and tried to prove that the total income also includes an amount of Rs.3,63053 paisa which is received as other benefit for doing extra work of digital India otherwise it is not a part of the regular salary of the respondent husband. Inspite of such specific evidence on record, the petitioner has audacity to deny that he is earning such amount and states that salary slip does not have signature of any person and he is trying to show his smartness by stating on oath that his salary is only Rs.7,414/- which is in fact his basic salary. 5. Therefore, even if Rs.3,630/- is considered as an extra income, the fact remains that the salary of the petitioner is more than Rs.15,000/- per month and, therefore, his wife and minor are certainly entitled to substantial amount of maintenance instead of meager amount as warded by the impugned order. Thereby, considering the income of the petitioner as Rs.18,000/- in the month of October, 2016 even minimum amount of maintenance that could be awarded would be Rs.4,500/- being 25% of Rs.18,000/-. Thereby, considering the income of the petitioner as Rs.18,000/- in the month of October, 2016 even minimum amount of maintenance that could be awarded would be Rs.4,500/- being 25% of Rs.18,000/-. However, considering the overall facts and circumstance, so also inflation increasing, salary of the petitioner because of increment and higher reduction of DA and considering the requirement of minor for his better growth and education and considering the fact that maintenance does not mean only meal of a day, but it includes expenditure for residence, electricity, education, clothes, transportation and to some extent even entertainment also, it would be appropriate to increase the amount of maintenance for respondent no.2 from Rs.2,700/- to Rs.4,000/- and for respondent no.3 from Rs.1200/- to Rs.2,000/- i.e. in all Rs.6,000/-. 6. In view of above facts and circumstance, this Revision Petition is partly allowed whereby the impugned order is modified to above extent. Therefore, now, petitioners are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively from respondent husband from the date of application i.e. 8.12.2015 and respondent shall continue to pay such amount regularly. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. 8. Record and Proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Court.