ORDER : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 16.03.2015 passed by Family Court, Bhilwara, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was partly allowed. Claim of petitioner No.1 was rejected by the Court below and Rs. 1,500/- per month was awarded as maintenance to petitioner No. 2 from the date of order i.e. 16.03.2015. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Court below has erred in awarding the meagre amount when there was specific pleading that respondent has a share in agricultural produce, is an agent of Sahara India and his income was shown as Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum. 3. It is contended that respondent has not produced any proof of his income and the burden shifted upon him when he admitted in his cross-examination that he is an agent and he has share in the agricultural land and he is also working in the factory. 4. It is contended that in the present price index, it is not possible to maintain a girl with meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month. 5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner is working as an agent of Sahara India and he is at present employed. It is also contended that application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the respondent which application was allowed by the Court below. A civil misc. appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1, stands rejected by the High Court. Petitioner No.1 has come to reside with the respondent, hence, Court below has committed any error in rejecting her claim. 6. It is also contended that respondent is paying the school fees of his daughter, hence, there is no case for enhancing the maintenance. 7. It is also contended that income of respondent is just Rs. 6,000/- per month and the amount awarded to petitioner No.2 cannot be said to be meagre. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. There was specific pleadings on behalf of the petitioners that income of the respondent is only Rs. 7. It is also contended that income of respondent is just Rs. 6,000/- per month and the amount awarded to petitioner No.2 cannot be said to be meagre. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. There was specific pleadings on behalf of the petitioners that income of the respondent is only Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum that he has a share in agricultural produce, he is an agent of Sahara India, in defence respondent has in his cross-examination admitted that he is working with the factory that he has a share in the agricultural land and its produce. Respondent in his reply to the petition has admitted that he is an agent of Sahara India and from the commission income he is running his family. 10. From the record, it is revealed that school fees of petitioner No.2 is to the tune of Rs. 1,050/- per month which does include other expenses. 11. Respondent has tried to conceal his actual income. He has admitted his share in the agricultural land and the produce, he has also admitted that he is working in the factory. Taking into account, the minimum wages prevalent in the state his income cannot be considered less than Rs. 12,000/- per month. Court below has erred in considering the income as Rs. 6,000/- per month which does tally with the evidence and record produced by the party. 12. In view of the same, the finding of the Court below with regard to rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 is to be sustained as petitioner No.1 has not joined her husband inspite of there being an order passed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, I deem it proper to enhance the maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The enhanced amount would be payable from the date of this order. Till date of this order respondent would continue to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month. 13. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed.