JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The respondent-husband being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag (for short the 'Family Court') in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6 of 2016 has filed this revision petition. 2. The parties are referred with their ranks before the Family Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The respondents herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.6 of 2016 before the Family Court, Gadag seeking maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.07.2007 at Khode Kalyan Mantap, Gadag-Betageri as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. After the marriage, she came to the house of husband to lead marital life at Venkatapur and two children were born out of their wedlock. The respondent is running Krishna Bakery at Gadag and petitioner No3. was born in the year-2013. After that, he went Bengaluru for earnings and neglected the petitioners. He did not heed to the advice of the elders. Thereafter, the respondent -husband came to Gadag and he started sweet shop. The respondent used to assault the petitioner No.1 without any cause and thrown out of the house. He proposed to get marry one Shruti on the instigation of his brother and his wife. The respondent has not made any arrangement for the maintenance of the petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are studying in Gadag. Respondent-husband is running New Krishna Ayyengar Bakery at Mundargi and getting income of Rs.40,000/- per month and he is also getting annual income of Rs.1,00,000/-from the lands. He has physically and mentally tortured petitioner No.1 therefore, she was constrained to file the petition seeking maintenance. The petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 4. In response to the notice, respondent-husband appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections, he has admitted relationship between the petitioners and himself and he has denied the allegations made in the petition that he tortured petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 did not lead proper marital life with him, she has left his company and he is ready to lead married life with her, but she has refused to lead married life. He is not running Krishna Ayyengar Bakery at Mundargi. Petitioner No.1 did not lead proper marital life with him, she has left his company and he is ready to lead married life with her, but she has refused to lead married life. He is not running Krishna Ayyengar Bakery at Mundargi. He has no income of Rs.40,000/- per month from the bakery. He is also not getting income from agriculture. He owned one acre dry land and he is not getting income from the said land. Petitioner No.1 has also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. But, she is not ready to lead marital life with him. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. In order to prove her claim, petitioner No.1- wife got examined herself as PW-1 and she got marked 10 documents. The respondent-husband got examined himself as RW-1 and he has not produced any documents. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Gadag after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the petition and awarded maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to each petitioners from the date of petition. 6. The husband being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this revision petition on the ground that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is wholly illegal and perverse and without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also settled position of law. The Family Court has committed serious error in holding that the revision petitioner having sufficient means, neglected to maintain the respondents. The Family Court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the respondents without properly considering the facts and circumstances and without considering the weight of evidence on record. Respondent No.1 has failed to prove the averments made in the petition. He has adduced evidence before the Family Court that he is working as mason and getting income of Rs.150/- per day and out of this he has to look after his aged parents and therefore he is not in a position to pay the maintenance. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the revision petitioner and for respondents. 8. A short question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the revision petitioner has made out grounds to set aside the order awarding maintenance to the respondents or to reduce the maintenance amount. 9. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the revision petitioner and for respondents. 8. A short question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the revision petitioner has made out grounds to set aside the order awarding maintenance to the respondents or to reduce the maintenance amount. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter was referred to mediation and that the respondent No.1-wife refused to join the company of revision petitioner and that she has filed a false complaint against him. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove the income of the revision petitioner and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.1-wife herein had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and said petition was allowed and the husband was directed to take back the wife and children, however, he has not complied with the decree passed in the said petition. On the other hand, he has contacted second marriage and living with his second wife having a child also. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is proper. 11. The revision petitioner herein has not disputed the relationship between himself and the respondents. Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are their minor children. The respondent-husband has also not disputed that the petitioner No.1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was allowed and the respondent-husband was directed to take back the wife and children. However, respondent-husband has not complied with the said decree. On other hand, he contends that the petitioner No.1 has voluntarily left the matrimonial house and that she is not ready to join his company. This contention of the respondent-revision petitioner herein cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner No.1 is having any source of income for maintaining herself and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, therefore the petitioner No.1 has proved that the respondent has neglected them to maintain having sufficient means to maintain them and the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner No.1 is having any source of income for maintaining herself and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, therefore the petitioner No.1 has proved that the respondent has neglected them to maintain having sufficient means to maintain them and the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner herein that the Family Court has acted illegally and arbitrarily in holding that he has neglected the petitioners and he is liable to pay maintenance cannot be accepted. 12. The petitioner No.1 has deposed before the Family Court about the occupation and income of the respondent-husband stating that he is running a bakery and also having agricultural land and getting sufficient income. On the other hand, the respondent-husband has deposed that the parents of the petitioner No.1 are rich and he has further stated that he is working in a bakery at Mundargi and he is getting two bags of jowar from the land and therefore, he has no sufficient income. In his cross examination, he has denied that he was getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month when he was working in Krishna Bakery, but he has stated that he was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. He has further stated that out of the family lands 01 acre 16 guntas is given to his share. He has denied that he is running a bakery at Mundargi in the name-New Ayyengar Bakery and earning good income and that he is also getting annual income of Rs.1,00,000/-from the lands. Therefore, the respondent has not come up with his actual income and the source of income. On the other hand, the 1st respondent herein has alleged that the revision petitioner has contacted second marriage and living with her and they have a child through the second marriage. However, this allegation is not supported by any material. But the revision petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 herein has filed false complaint of second marriage against him. Therefore, it is admitted that the 1st respondent has filed complaint against the revision petitioner in respect of alleged second marriage. 13. Under these circumstances, considering the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned order is either perverse or capricious or against the material on record and therefore, same cannot be set aside. Therefore, it is admitted that the 1st respondent has filed complaint against the revision petitioner in respect of alleged second marriage. 13. Under these circumstances, considering the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned order is either perverse or capricious or against the material on record and therefore, same cannot be set aside. Therefore, this Court holds that revision petitioner has failed to make out any grounds for setting aside the impugned order or to reduce the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. Therefore, the revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition hereby dismissed with costs.