JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Shahzad Bano. wife of Sher Mohammad respondent, had filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) in the Family Court, Jodhpur, praying for maintenance for herself and her daughter Salma. The learned Judge rejected the prayer so far as the maintenance of the appellant was concerned and allowed Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance to Salma, the daughter born out of the wedlock. 2. Mr. N.D. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the ground of cruelty taken by the appellant has been duly substantiated by her statement as well as her father's statement. It has been empathetically argued by the learned counsel that as the husband of the appellant has contacted second marriage, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance while living separate from the husband. 3. Mr. S.G. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent has justified the findings of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the ground of cruelty could not be proved and the petitioner was always, and still is, willing to keep the wife with him and as such appellant has been rightly denied maintenance by the learned Judge, Family Court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that but for the said statement of the appellant there is no evidence about the husband contacting second marriage. 4. Upon perusal of the record, we find justification in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge. So far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, there are the statements of Shahzad Bano and her father. She has stated about her husband giving a beating and turning her out of the house. Her father has stated that he had seen injuries on the person of his daughter. The learned Judge has rightly observed that there was no medical certificate to substantiate this contention nor has any individual witness been examined to state anything about the alleged cruelty of the husband to the appellant. It is evident from the record that the husband was willing to keep the wife with him but the wife was reluctant to live with him. 5. Mr. It is evident from the record that the husband was willing to keep the wife with him but the wife was reluctant to live with him. 5. Mr. N.D. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the explanation to proviso 2 of sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. and submitted that when the husband has contacted second marriage, the wife cannot be forced to live with the husband and her desire to live separate will not come in the way of allowing her maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 6. The position of law is clear that if the husband wants to keep the wife and the wife without any justification or reason declines to live with the husband, maintenance cannot be allowed. However, it the husband contracts second marriage, the wife can legitimately decline to live with the husband and becomes entitle to maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. With this principle in mind when we turn to the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the learned trial Judge that the appellant had failed to substantiate her case that her husband had contacted second marriage. She has stated about the husband contacting second marriage with one Roshan to whom according to her she had not seen. She has further stated that it was through some relatives of her husband that she came to know about this marriage of her husband but she could not tell the names of the relatives who had furnished this information to her. Her father Gaffar Khan has stated that the Sher Mohammad, his son-in-law, has contacted marriage with one Salma. The learned Judge has rightly taken into consideration these inconsistent versions of the appellant and her father regarding the name of the girl. There is no witness to state as to when, where and in what circumstances Sher Mohammad had contacted second marriage. In these circumstances the learned Judge has rightly declined to give any relief to the appellant in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and we therefore find no ground to interfere with that reasoned order. 7. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******