P.B. VARALE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri B.K. Pal, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By way of present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 16th June, 2012 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Nagpur.

2. Heard Shri Prashant Gode, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri U.K. Pal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to filing of the present application are as under:-

The respondent No. 1 approached the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur by filing a petition seeking award of the maintenance for herself and her daughter namely Neha aged 14 years. It was the submission of the respondent No. 1 before the family Court that the marriage between the couple was solemnized some time in the year 1995. Out of the said wedlock, an issue i.e. petitioner No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) Kum. Neha was born on 13.11.1995. It was further the submission of the respondent No. 1 i.e. petitioner No. 1 before the family Court that the applicant was engaged in a private service in the State of Madhya Pradesh in Dewas district, but for inadequate salary, he left the job and returned back to his town Pandhurna. The sum and substance of the contention in the application is that though the respondent No. 1 and her paternal relations made attempts to maintain the marital cord between the couple because of the negative approach of the petitioner, it resulted into a matrimonial discord between the couple. It was also an allegation that the applicant married to one Anita Kharwade irrespective of his first marriage was in subsistence. The respondent No. 1 submitted that the applicant herein earns Rs. 10,000/- and also receives Rs. 3,000/- per month towards rent and as the respondent No. 1 having no source of income and has to maintain herself and her daughter, a claim was preferred for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2.500/- per month to each of the petitioner namely the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 daughter Ku. Neha. The petition was objected by filing reply on behalf of the applicant. The learned Judge, Family Court, on the material produced before him and on considering the submissions of the learned Counsel representing the parties, allowed and the application and awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5.000/- per month in total i.e. Rs. 2,500/- per month for the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- for applicant No. 2 from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 15th February. 2010 with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

4. Shri Prashant Gode, the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the order passed by the learned Judge. Family Court is not only erroneous order but the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the material aspect of the matter which goes to the root of the matter. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of the submissions presented before the Court, the Court without offering an opportunity to the applicant either to challenge the material presented on behalf of the applicants/respondents or to counter the claim of the applicants/respondents, passed the order awarding the maintenance. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that though the specific material was presented before the Court to show the monthly income of the applicant, the learned Judge, family Court, on erroneous consideration, awarded an exorbitant amount of maintenance. He further submits that the applicant initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and those proceedings were concluded by the decree passed by the competent forum. The learned Counsel further submits that though the fact of these proceedings initiated by the applicant/husband and concluded by the decision of the competent forum was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, family