JUDGMENT K.M. Agrawal, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiff/wife is directed against the reversing judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. It was admitted for hearing on 19-4-1983 on the following substantial question of law :-- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower appellate Court, while upsetting the judgment and decree of the lower Court has committed an error of law in negativing the appellant-wife's claim for maintenance against the respondent, who is her husband, by ignoring and misreading the evidence and material on record, contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act ?" 2. It does not appear necessary to narrate the facts in detail for disposing of the second appeal. Suffice it to say that the appellant is the wife for the respondent. She is living separately from the husband. She filed suit for maintenance of Rs. 40/- per month against her husband and claimed a charge on the suit land for payment for the alimony. The suit was resisted, but decreed, by the Trial Court. In appeal, it was reversed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that there was no justification for the wife to live separately from her husband. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this second appeal. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court to be set aside and those passed by the Trial Court deserve to be set aside. It cannot be disputed that a Hindu wife has a right to be maintained by her husband, which has also been recognised Under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956, (in short, the 'Act'). If the husband considered that there was no justification for separate living of the wife, she could file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but no ground could not deny to provide for the maintenance, particularly in a civil suit, which is unlike proceedings Under Section 125 of the Cri. Procedure Code. In the present case, the respondent admittedly, is not maintaining his wife and the wife has also not been proved to have any separate source of her income. Procedure Code. In the present case, the respondent admittedly, is not maintaining his wife and the wife has also not been proved to have any separate source of her income. Under the circumstances, she was entitled to a decree for maintenance with charge on the suit land as granted by the Trial Court. The amount of maintenance claimed is also not excessive. On the contrary, it is very low. 4. In the result, this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed with costs throughout. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the Trial Court are restored with costs. Counsel fee as per certificate or schedule, whichever be Ises if already certified.