H.K. Sema, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court on 24.9.93 in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No.20 of 1993. By the aforesaid order, the learned Family Court directed the appellant to pay Rs,400/- to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs.300/- to the petitioner No.2. So far with regard to the maintenance cost of the petitioner No.2 the appellant has no grievances, but with regard to the maintenance cost of Rs.400/- to the petitioner No. 1, the appellant has grievance. 2. On the petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 for maintenance, the learned Family Court registered the case as Case No.20 of 1993. On the basis of the petition and written statement, the learned Family Court formulates 3 (three) points for determination. These are : (1) Whether the petitioner No. 1 is unable to maintain herself ? (2) Whether the opposite party has sufficient means and refused or neglected to maintain the petitioners ? (3) Amount of maintenance allowance, if to be ordered, for the maintenance of the petitioners ? 3. During the trial, the appellant was examined himself as DW 1. He admits that the petitioner No. 1 is his lawfully married wife and the petitioner No.2 is his only son. He also admits that he is ready to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.300 for the petitioner No.1 which he has been giving/paying. The appellant further deposed that he does not like his wife to return to him and so he is ready to give her maintenance allowance as the Court may fix. The appellant, further, deposed mat he is ready to give her maintenance allowance @ Rs.200 PM. On consideration of the deposition of PWs and DWs, the learned Family Court has come to the findings that it will meet the ends of justice if the maintenance allowance is fixed at Rs.400/- in respect of the petitioner No. 1 and Rs.300/- in respect of the petitioner No.2 respectively as agreed by the appellant. 4. The only grievance of the appellant is that under sub-section (4) of section 125 if the wife without any sufficient reason refused to live with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It is submitted by Mr. 4. The only grievance of the appellant is that under sub-section (4) of section 125 if the wife without any sufficient reason refused to live with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It is submitted by Mr. RK Nokulsana Singh that one evening when the appellant (husband) returned home, he found his wife absent from his house and therefore she refused to live with the appellant without sufficient reason and as such she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. We are unable to accept this submission of Mr. RK Nokulsana Singh for more than one reasons. The word, "without any sufficient reason" employed in sub-section (4) of section 125 would show that if the wife left the house of the husband without any sufficient reasons then only she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. In the case at hand, it is admitted by the appellant himself in his deposition as DW 1 that he does not like his wife to return to him. The fact that the husband does not want his wife to return to him would be a sufficient reason for the wife to leave his house. Therefore, she had a sufficient cause to leave the house of the appellant and on this count the appellant would not be entitled to refuse the maintenance allowance. Sub-section (4) of section 125 is applicable in case where the husband wanted his wife to live with him, but the wife refused to live with him without any sufficient reason. This is not the case in the fact of the case at hand. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. RK Nokulsana Singh. On the other hand, on his own volition the appellant volunteered to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- to the petitioner No.1. The learned Family Court simply enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs.400/- on the basis of the capability of the appellant to pay. 5. In view of the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the Family Court was absolutely a balance order and does not call for any interference from this Court. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.