JUDGMENT : M.B. SHAH, J. 1. The appellant had filed, Hindu Marriage Petition No. 53 of 1980 for restitution of conjugal rights and also for maintenance. It was her contention that she was married with the respondent on 20th May, 1976 as per Hindu rites. She was driven out by the respondent without any reason or cause and that he was ill-treating her. She also served the notice dated 24th January, 1980 upon the respondent. The said notice was replied evasively by the respondent on 29th January, 1980. It is her contention that the respondent has got a factory and is earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, in any case the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month should be awarded to her. 2. When the evidence was recorded, she was admitted in terms that when she was residing with her husband, she was well treated, but subsequently the respondent started quarreling with her. Her mother-in-law and the respondent asked her to get out of the house, therefore, she was staying with her parents since last 4 years and that the respondent had never tried to call her back. It is her say that after the death of his first wife the respondent had remarried her but before remarriage she was not informed that the respondent was operated (vasectomy). It is her say that her whole life was ruined by the respondent. With regard to the income of her husband she had stated that the respondent was having 30-32 warping machines. She had denied the allegation that she was earning about Rs. 300/- per month. 3. After considering the evidence which was led on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent, the learned Assistant Judge, Surat, by his judgment and order dated 14th April, 1981 dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights well as for maintenance by holding that the respondent was earning about Rs. 400/- per month and that he was required to maintain a large family. He further arrived at the conclusion that the appellant wife was doing the work of weaving border and it appears from the record that she was earning Rs. 250/- or Rs. 300/- per month. 4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Advocate for the appellant has not pressed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He further arrived at the conclusion that the appellant wife was doing the work of weaving border and it appears from the record that she was earning Rs. 250/- or Rs. 300/- per month. 4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Advocate for the appellant has not pressed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He submitted that the learned Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant wife has given up to prayer for decree for restitution of conjugal rights, but at the same time he submitted that the learned Judge materially erred in not granting maintenance to the appellant. According to his submission, before remarriage the appellant was not informed by the respondent that he was operated and thereby her whole life was ruined by the respondent. 5. In this case the learned Judge has not awarded permanent alimony only on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for the wife to reside separately from the respondent and, therefore, she was not entitled to have maintenance. 6. Looking to the deposition of the appellant, it is clear that she feels that her whole life was ruined by the respondent, she was duped and she was not informed by the respondent that the vasectomy operation was already performed upon him. In this set of circumstances it cannot, be said that there is no reasonable cause for the appellant for residing separately from her husband. As the pointed attention of both the parties was not focussed with regard to the income of the appellant as well as the respondent, in the interest of justice it would he necessary to remand this matter to the trial court for deciding afresh on the question of quantum of maintenance. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding afresh whether or not permanent alimony should be granted to the appellant. The learned Judge is directed to raise the issue with regard to the income of the appellant and the respondent and allow the parties to lead evidence if they so desire on the said issue and fix the quantum of maintenance after considering the evidence on record and such other evidence that may be led by the parties. Appeal partly allowed.