JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-husband assailing the judgment/order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari whereby the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for enhancement of maintenance has been allowed and the maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.3,000/- per month to Rs.11,000/- per month (Rs.5500/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.5500/- to respondent No.2-minor daughter).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in enhancing the maintenance to an excessive amount without there being sufficient proof of the income of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is merely a labourer earning a meager income and the learned Court below has wrongly presumed his income on conjectures and surmises. It is further argued that the agricultural land is not owned by the petitioner but stands in the name of his father and, therefore, no income therefrom can be attributed to him.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has deliberately concealed his true income and the learned Family Court has rightly assessed his earning capacity and enhanced the maintenance keeping in view the rising needs, particularly the educational expenses of the minor daughter.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the impugned judgment along with the record.

5. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties is admitted and respondent No.2 is the minor daughter born out of the wedlock. It is also an admitted position that initially maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month was granted, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3,000/-per month in Lok Adalat proceedings, not on adjudication on merits but on the basis of statement made by the petitioner.

6. The learned Family Court, while dealing with the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C., has recorded a finding regarding change in circumstances. The said finding is based on the fact that respondent No.2, who was earlier studying in 6^th class, is now studying in 10^th class and her educational expenses have increased considerably. The documentary evidence in the shape of fee receipts (Ex.P1 to Ex.P16) and other expenses (Mark A to Mark F) substantiates the said position.

7. The contention of the petitioner that there is no sufficient change in circumstances is, thus, without merit. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cost of education as well as cost of living has risen substantially over the years, which justifies reconsideration of the maintenance amount.

8. As regards the income of the petitioner, the learned Family Court has noticed that the petitioner has taken inconsistent stands. While claiming himself to be a labourer, he has admitted that his father owns agricultural land and that he is the only son. The revenue record indicates possession of agricultural land by the family. Further, material on record suggests that the petitioner is engaged in dairy/business activities.

9. Significantly, the petitioner has failed to disclose his actual income. In proceedings of this nature, where the true income lies within the special knowledge of the husband, failure to disclose the same justifies drawing of an adverse inference. The learned Family Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the petitioner is concealing his income.

10. The assessment of income made by the learned Family Court at approximately Rs.22,000/- per month is based on a reasonable and pragmatic approach, keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, prevailing wages, and the status of the family. The said assessment cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because no documentary proof of exact income is available.

11. The plea of the petitioner that the agricultural land stands in the name of h