JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the order dated, February 21, 1990 whereby her petition Under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur. 2. The petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant on October 3, 1986, alleging therein that she was married to the respondent Prabhu Narain about 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and two daughters were born from their wed-lock, but both of them died during their infancy. It was also pleaded inter-alia that she has been neglected by her husband and she was unable to maintain herself. In the petition it was expressly pleaded that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband and his other relatives. They used to beat her and did not provide proper meals, though, she used to be compelled to work throughout the day. It was also alleged in the petition that her husband has married with one Ram Pyari who was residing with him as his wife. In para No. 5 of the petition it was also stated that 3-4 days prior to filing of the petition, she was beaten by her husband and other persons and she was taken in a Jeep and left in Jungle in the helpless condition. 3. The petition was filed against the husband Prabhu Narain and his father Bhanwar Lal. In their reply, the respondents denied the averments made in the petition and further pleaded that the appellant was leading an un-chaste life, having illicit connections with her elder sister's husband (Jeeja) and other persons. 4. At the out set, it may be stated that Lawyers are not permitted in Family Courts and matters are decided by the Courts on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties recorded be them. In the instant case, the appellant examined herself as P.W. 1 and produced two witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Ladu Ram and P.W. 3 Gopal. In rebuttal, the husband - Prabhu Narain appeared as D.W. 1 and examined Chhaju Ram and Nansu as D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 respectively. 5. In the instant case, the appellant examined herself as P.W. 1 and produced two witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Ladu Ram and P.W. 3 Gopal. In rebuttal, the husband - Prabhu Narain appeared as D.W. 1 and examined Chhaju Ram and Nansu as D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 respectively. 5. During pendency of the petition, the appellant had also moved an application for grant of interim maintenance, but no order was passed by the Judge observing that the said application shall be considered after recording evidence of the parties and thereafter, the main petition itself was dismissed. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court, recorded the following findings, after recording evidence of the parties: (i) that the appellant was married with the respondent Prabhu Narain 16 years prior to the filing of the petition; (ii) that two daughters were born from their wed-lock, but both of them died during their child-hood. (iii) that the husband was financially sound and capable of providing maintenance to his wife. 7. However, the prayer of the appellant for grant of maintenance was declined on the ground that she failed to prove that she was neglected or refused to be maintained by the husband and that she had no legitimate excuse for not living with her husband. The learned Judge, Family Court, did not accept the statement of the wife in absence of corroborative evidence, that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the husband and his other relatives. 8. Inspite of service of summons of the appeal, the respondents did not put their appearance. We therefore, heard the arguments of Mr. N.S. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was legally married wife of the respondent - Prabhu Narain and admittedly, she was not living with him for the last several years. That the husband has not cared at all to maintain her for the last so many years. No arrangement for her food or clothing etc. has been made by him. Learned Counsel contended that the husband was legally bound to support his wife and the appellant is entitled to get maintenance allowance as she has no independent source of income and she was being neglected by her husband. 10. No arrangement for her food or clothing etc. has been made by him. Learned Counsel contended that the husband was legally bound to support his wife and the appellant is entitled to get maintenance allowance as she has no independent source of income and she was being neglected by her husband. 10. After our deep consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and after examining the entire material on record, including the evidence of the parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been wrongly denied maintenance allowance by the Family Court and the appeal should be allowed. 11. The appellant has appeared in witness box as P.W. 1. she has categorically stated that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relatives. She used to be beaten by them and she was not even provided meals, though she was compelled to work through out the day. The Judge, Family Court, refused to accept her statement simply on the ground that there was no other evidence to corroborate the above facts stated by her. In our view, this approach of the learned Judge, Family Court was not legally sound. The proceedings Under section 125 Cr.P.C. are in the nature of civil proceedings, though they are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The rule of strict proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required to prove the accusation in a criminal case does not apply in the proceedings for grant of maintenance. Neglect or refusal of the wife by the husband can be inferred from the conduct of the husband and it can be proved on pre-ponderance of probability-by the evidence on record. There is no rule of law that in the proceedings Under section 125 Cr.P.C. the uncorroborated evidence of wife cannot be accepted. 12. In the instant case, the following facts are undisputed or proved by the evidence on record: (i) the wife is not living with the husband since long time and she has no independent source of income to maintain her; (ii) that during such long period, the husband has not cared to maintain the wife and no arrangement was made by him for her meals and clothing etc. by providing money to her, even though, he is financially well off to maintain her. 13. by providing money to her, even though, he is financially well off to maintain her. 13. Even we hold that the appellant has failed to prove that her husband has married with one Ram Pyari, still she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. From her statement it is proved that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his relatives. Ordinarily, no Hindu wife would like to live separate from her husband unless there are compelling reasons or circumstances. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the wife specially when nothing has come in her cross examination to disbelieve this part of her statement. Further, the husband has made wild allegation against the appellant that she was living in adultery and was having illicit affairs with her sister's husband (Jeeja) and other persons. Apparently, these allegations are wild in nature and there is no material on record to prove them except a vague and bold allegation by the husband in his statement. The appellant has categorically stated on oath that her sister's husband (Jeeja) was like her father. She has denied that she was having illicit relations with him. No wife can be compelled to live with her husband under such wild charges about her character. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant had sufficient cause for not living with her husband and that she has been neglected and refused to be maintained by him. 14. Consequently, we allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the Family Court is reversed and set aside. We allow the application of the wife for grant of maintenance Under section 125 Cr.P.C. and direct that the respondent husband shall pay Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance allowance to the appellant from 3.10.86, the date of making the application, till today. From today, he will pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance. The arrears of maintenance allowance till today shall be paid by him in three monthly instalments payable on 1st May, 1st July and 1st September, 1996. The appellant shall also be entitled to get costs of this appeal, which is assessed Rs. 2,000/-.Petition allowed. *******