JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent No.1 State and Learned Advocate Mr. Abhisst K. Thaker for the respondent No.2. Perused the records. 2. The applicant herein is husband whereas the respondent No.2 is his wife and respondent No.3 is their minor son. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.11.2016 by Family Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.856/2014, whereby the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.3000/- towards the maintenance of respondent No.2 wife, while rejecting the prayer for maintenance of respondent No.3 on the ground that pending such litigation, which was dragged for more than two years, the custody of minor was shifted from mother to father i.e. applicant herein. Therefore, now the dispute remains only with reference to the maintenance of respondent No.2, who has claimed maintenance as, she was deserted by the applicant and the learned Family Court has awarded a meager amount of Rs.3000/- only to be paid from the date of filing of application i.e. 16.10.2014 and Rs.5000/- as cost of such litigation. 3. The sum and substance of challenge of Order of maintenance by the applicant-husband is to the effect that in fact the respondent-wife had voluntarily deserted the applicant-husband without any justifiable reasons and that such fact admitted by her in her cross-examination and therefore, relying upon the subsection 4 of section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is submitted that she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. It is further submitted that at the time of marriage with the respondent-wife, the applicant was not aware about preexisting marriage of the respondent-wife with one Raghuveersinh Pravinsinh Rathod and since such facts were not disclosed by the respondent-wife to him and since, he came to know about such facts only in the year 2014 and thereby the respondent-wife has cheated the applicant and therefore, their marriage is null and void because the respondent-wife had never got divorce from his previous marriage with Raghuversinh Rathod. It is further submitted that this fact is also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination. It is further submitted that this fact is also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination. It is further contended that even at the time of proceeding before the learned trial Court that is even after deserting the applicant-husband, the respondent–wife has married with one Rajendrasinh Sarvaiya and that such fact was admitted by such Rajendrasinh Sarvaiya in proceeding the under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the concerned Court, wherein, Rajendrasinh Sarvaiya has made a statement that respondent-wife is now residing with him; however, losing sight of such important aspect, the learned Family Court has passed impugned order by relying upon the evidence of respondent-wife only and by discarding the evidence of applicant without assigning any cogent reasons and without discussing such evidence. Though, the applicant has pleaded on oath in ground-D of the application that copy of deposition of applicant as well as statements of Rajendrasinh are annexed at Annexure–C collectively with this application. Practically, no such documents are found on record as annexed with the application and in fact, there is no clerical error in doing so inasmuch as, when the index of the application is confirming that last page number of the application is page No.50, at such page there is only examination in chief i.e. deposition of the applicant in the form of affidavit without the part of his cross-examination so also statement of said Rajendrasingh, it becomes clear that the applicant has not attached or annexed the statement of Rajendrasinh as pleaded, so also the cross-examination of the applicant and to that extent of deposition in the form of affidavit as examination-in-chief at Annexure-C from page Nos.47 to 50 is not complete document and therefore, it cannot be looked into and rely upon, and such document needs to be discarded from consideration on merits. 4. It is further contended by the applicant that learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence from the applicant, whereby the applicant has proved that the respondent has deserted the applicant and she has refused to live with the applicant without any sufficient reasons and therefore, in absence of prima-facie evidence to show that there is mental and physical harassment or cruelty committed by the husband, she is not entitled to maintenance. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to rely upon judgments cited by the applicant regarding legality of the first marriage of the respondent-wife. It is also submitted that she has admitted the fact that her husband tried to take her back but she does not wants to live with him on any condition. It is also contended that Family Court has erred in presuming his income as Rs.15000/- per month. without any evidence and also failed to consider the fact that the applicant has to maintain two sons and awarded Rs.3000/- towards maintenance of respondent–wife relying only upon oral evidence of the wife that he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. Thereby, though prima-facie, this matter needs to be dismissed for wants of proper filing inasmuch as, the applicant has failed to file complete documents at Annexure–C and even if we may not be so technical, at least document at Annexure–C cannot be relied upon at this stage because it is incomplete documents inasmuch as, it is only an examination-in-chief of the applicant, below which his cross-examination has been recorded by the learned Family Court but the applicant has not attached portion of such cross-examination with such affidavit and therefore, it is to be discarded and ignored as if it is not filed on record. It cannot be ignored that otherwise the applicant is aware about the attached portion of cross-examination with such affidavit which is filed as examination-in-chief because with similar affidavit of respondent-wife, as examination-in-chief of his wife is already attached by the applicant and produced at Annexure-B but therein, also, the applicant has selectively produced only the copy of cross-examination of respondent No.2 without producing her affidavit which is her examination-in-chief before the learned trial Court. Therefore, now it is quite clear on record that the applicant has produced selective portion of both documents with the intention to hide the evidence which is produced against him in the form of examination-in-chief of wife and his own cross-examination and thereby, when both such documents are incomplete, none of such documents can be relied upon while deciding the revision petition. In fact, for such practice, the applicant needs to be condemned with some observation and stricture but to avoid unhealthy situation, I am restricting myself from initiating any proceeding against the applicant but at the same time, it would be necessary to remind the registry that the registry should be careful while registering the matter and to see that proper and full documents are filed on record by the concerned litigant. Whereby, now it is clear that herein the applicant wants to disclose only those part of documents where he is comfortable and he does not wants to disclose the correct position at such revisional stage, more particularly based upon the record of the trial Court, which should be never withheld or hide from the Court. 6. Unfortunately, in addition to above referred practice of filing selective portion of entire documents with revision petition, the applicant has even after repeated disclosure by the Court, instead of relying upon the evidence that might have been produced by either side before the learned trial Court continue to rely upon the pleading before trial Court during his submissions, submitting that this Court should considered pleadings as it has been proved by presumption based upon few lines referred by him from incomplete documents produced by him at Annexures B & C. It is also settled legal position that incomplete documents cannot be relied upon and that all such documents, more particularly evidence of any litigant, needs to be referred in whole and they cannot be considered based upon isolated one or few lines only of such evidence. Therefore, now if we perused the impugned judgment, it becomes clear that the learned trial Court has taken care of all the evidence by the applicant herein and passed reasoned order determining all the issues raised by the applicant and relying upon several decisions. Therefore, in absence of any irregularity in the proceedings in determination of dispute between the parties, by the learned Family Court, there is little scope to interfere with it in revisional jurisdiction, only because alternative view is possible as pleaded and submitted by the applicant. 7. The Family Court has dealt with issue of nondisclosure of first marriage by the wife and recorded that though such plea has been taken by the applicant-husband he could not prove such documents by proper and cogent evidence. 7. The Family Court has dealt with issue of nondisclosure of first marriage by the wife and recorded that though such plea has been taken by the applicant-husband he could not prove such documents by proper and cogent evidence. In fact, such issues is discussed in details before coming to the conclusion that the applicant has never objected or came forward till the final argument of the applicant before the Family Court regarding nondisclosure of alleged previous marriage of respondent-wife and such issue was raised only at the time of final arguments and that to without in any substantial evidence to that effect. Whereas, it is also recorded by the Family Court that in fact there is allegation against the applicant also to have illicit relationship with some other lady who is identify as neighbor namely Meena by respondent-wife and therefore, there is sufficient reasons for respondent-wife not to stay with the applicant, who had otherwise admitted even in this revision petition, on oath, that he has married with the respondent-wife and they have two children. So far as the allegation regarding nondisclosure of previous marriage by the respondent-wife is concerned, in absence of specific evidence to that effect there cannot be presumption against the wife. It is well settled legal position that person who pleads and alleged specific details has to prove it. Therefore, burden of proof is upon the husband to prove that the wife was previously married. The fact remains that what is admitted by the respondent-wife is quite clear that her marriage was performed with Khandu (knife) but she has never been to house of so called previous husband. It is admitted fact that the respondent-wife is from Rajput community and there is custom in their community to perform the marriage with Khandu (sword or knife) with bride at her place and thereafter further rituals took place at the house of groom. Thereby, when the applicant confirmed that she had never been to the house of her so called husband and thereby, there is no question of keeping her properly or not, few words by the wife in her deposition, cannot be relied so as to confirm any evidence against her, more particularly, when the applicant has never bothered to declare such marriage as null and void. It cannot be ignored that the applicant has taken away the respondent-wife from the house of her parent either by force or under influence of love and affection and then they got married as per the Hindu rituals and they have two biological children during such relationship as husband and wife and therefore, now it is not permissible for the applicant to say that though he has kept her with him as his wife after performing marriage and though there are two children by such relationship, she is not legally married wife and therefore, not entitled to maintenance. 8. Therefore, considering overall evidence that the applicant is also facing charges of having relationship with another lady and thereby the respondent-wife has a reason to stay away from him, it cannot be said that the respondent-wife has refused to live with him without sufficient reasons and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. When applicant has failed to prove that he has no relationship with other lady and that the respondent-wife is living in a relationship with someone she is certainly entitled to maintenance. 9. The learned trial Court has also dealt with all decisions sited by the applicant on the subject. However, in absence of specific evidence, only because of few judgments confirming that wife who is not legally married, she is not entitled to maintenance, would not curtail the rights of respondent wife to get maintenance, until respondent proved such facts on record by cogent evidence. It is clear that though the applicant has submitted that the respondent has admitted her second marriage, in fact there is no such evidence on record and on instruction to point out the evidence, the learned Advocate instead of showing any piece of the evidence to confirm that the respondent-wife has admitted her second marriage relied upon the statement of Rajendrasinh Sarvaiya that might have been made by him in some proceedings between the parties. However, staying together with someone could not confirmed relationship, inasmuch as, he may be well-wisher, brother, relative or any caretaker of person but only because of the third person saying, without disclosing that he has married to the respondent-wife, in absence of allowing the wife to scrutinize such evidence and review such piece of evidence by third party that too in some different proceeding cannot be considered as proper evidence. It is undisputed fact that the statement of such third person is neither produced before this Court nor in Family Court, in the proceeding were impugned order of maintenance was passed. It is also undisputed fact that thereby learned Advocate for the applicant is repeatedly placing reliance upon pleading and submissions that when he had pleaded in his reply, the Court should believe that part as an evidence if respondent-wife could not prove that she has not married to such third person as alleged by the applicant. It is settled legal position that the burden of proof is on person who is pleading particular fact and therefore, the applicant is pleading that the respondent-wife is married to X then it is his responsibility to prove such facts by proper evidence before the trial Court and his pleading alone may not help him as such at revisional stage to held that respondent No.2 has married to someone and that too in absence of even proper document on record either in the form of reply or statement of such third person. It is clear and obvious from the record that the applicant has not produced relevant document on record. It is to be recollected that the applicant wants the Court to rely his pleading only, without any proper evidence on record before the trial Court and therefore, there is no substance in the revision petition. It is also clear that there is no evidence except submission to presume something by the applicant based upon incomplete documents and therefore, based upon such incomplete documents, there cannot be presumption in favour of the applicant. So far as issue regarding previous marriage of the respondent-wife is concerned, there is contradiction in the pleadings and submissions by the applicant inasmuch as, on one hand, the applicant has admitted that the respondent is his wife and they are having two children from the wedlock and on the other hand, he is also pleads and submits that the respondent is not legally married wife and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. 10. 10. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, all record confirming that the learned trial Court has taken care of rival submission and available evidence before it in deciding the quantum of maintenance and when Rs.3000/- towards maintenance only is awarded towards maintenance of two human being in these days when value of money following down and there is inflation, an amount of Rs.3000/- can never be said as excessive amount for maintenance for two persons and therefore, there is no reasons to interfere with in the amount of maintenance in any manner whatsoever. 11. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in impugned judgment by the learned Family Court since it is reasoned judgment dealing with all issues and determination based upon discussion on all issues and when the applicant has failed to prove inability of the wife to claim the maintenance in accordance with the law, based upon mere pleading by the respondent, impugned order cannot be disturbed and more particularly when it is confirming meager amount of maintenance in favour of wife from the person who has married to him by abducting her and staying with her for more than five (5) years and there are two children by him to such relationship. 12. In view of above facts and circumstances, revision petition stands dismissed.