JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 17.5.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 59/94 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs. 300/- to the non-petitioner No. 1 and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month was granted to the non-petitioner No. 2, who is the daughter of the non-petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition may be summarised as below : 4. Smt. Sita Devi (non-petitioner No. 1) submitted an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, jodhpur and alleged therein that her marriage with Mohan Ram (petitioner) had been solemnised 9 to 10 years ago in village Mangeria according to Hindu customs and after her marriage her husband Mohan Ram and the members of his family started making demands of dowry and committed acts of cruelty including the causing of simple and grievous injuries and after some time they turned out Smt. Sita Devi and her daughter Ku. Manju. It was also alleged in the application that Sita Devi and her daughter Ku. Manju, both were residing at the house of Sita Devi's father and that they had no sufficient means of living. It was also stated in the application that Mohan Ram (the petitioner) was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from his tractor and that he possesses 40 bighas of land and that he had neglected to pay any maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter. 5. Mohan Ram admitted his marriage and further admitted that Ku. Manju was his daughter. But the allegations regarding demand of dowry and causing of injuries to Sita Devi were denied. It was alleged by Mohan Ram in his reply that Sita Devi sometimes used to go away from his house and stay at the house of other persons and when he objected to it, she went away to her father's house. Regarding his paying capacity, Mohan Ram pleaded' that he did not own any tractor and that he was earning only Rs. 40-50 per day by working as a labourer and that he was prepared to keep his wife and daughter with him. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court allowed the parties to produce their evidence. Regarding his paying capacity, Mohan Ram pleaded' that he did not own any tractor and that he was earning only Rs. 40-50 per day by working as a labourer and that he was prepared to keep his wife and daughter with him. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court allowed the parties to produce their evidence. After carefully considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that the allegations regarding the demand of dowry by Mohan Ram and the member of his family were not proved to be true and so far as the character and conduct of Smt. Sita Devi was concerned, in view of the evidence produced by the parties, the character and conduct of Smt. Sita Devi was not doubtful. It was however, proved that she went to the house of Dhool Singh, who was the adopted brother of Sita Devi's father. The learned Judge, Family Court further held that the evidence disclosed that Mohan Ram gave a beating to his wife Smt. Sita Devi, because she visited the house of Dhool Singh and thereafter Smt. Sita Devi went to her father's house with her daughter. It was further held by the learned Judge, Family Court that Smt. Sita Devi and his daughter Ku. Manju had no independent means of living and Mohan Ram had no sufficient cause to refuse to pay the maintenance allowance to them. Regarding the economic status of Mohan Ram, the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that Mohan Ram was living in joint family, out of which, his father was head of the family and the joint family was in possession of agricultural land as well as a tractor. He, therefore, deemed it fit to grant maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/-to Sita Devi and at the same rate to Ku. Manju. 7. He, therefore, deemed it fit to grant maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/-to Sita Devi and at the same rate to Ku. Manju. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court has committed an error by granting maintenance allowance to the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2, because the petitioner Mohan Ram was always prepared to keep his wife and daughter with him and Smt. Sita Devi was living away from him without any sufficient cause and that the conduct of Smt. Sita Devi in as much as she stayed at the house of Dhool Singh on several occasions, was not reasonable and it create a suspicion about her character and that Smt. Sita Devi left the house of the petitioner Mohan Ram without any sufficient cause and therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance for herself and her daughter. 8. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has supported the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. 9. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned Judge, Family Court for allowing the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 1, under section 125 Cr.P.C. I have also carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by both the learned counsel of both the parties. It is not disputed that Smt. Sita Devi (non-petitioner No. 1) is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner Mohan Ram. It is also not disputed that Ku. Manju (non-petitioner No. 2) is a minor and she is the daughter of the petitioner Mohan Ram and non-petitioner Smt. Sita Devi. So far as the right of maintenance of the non-petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she is a minor and she is entitled to receive the maintenance allowance from the petitioner even when she is staying with her mother Smt. Sita Devi. So far as the right of Smt. Sita Devi (non-petitioner No. 1) is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court has held that she left the house of the petitioner Mohan Ram because she was given a beating and she had stayed at the house of Dhool Singh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the argument that the act of staying at the house of Dhool Singh was sufficient to raise a suspicion about the character of Smt. Sita Devi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the argument that the act of staying at the house of Dhool Singh was sufficient to raise a suspicion about the character of Smt. Sita Devi. I view of this submission, the conclusion drawn by the Judge, Family Court that the petitioner Mohan Ram gave a beating to Smt. Sita Devi because she had stayed at the house of Dhool Singh does not appear to be unreasonable. It is quite possible that Mohan Ram could have given a beating to Smt. Sita Devi because she stayed at the house of Dhool Singh. Dhool Singh, according to the findings of the Judge, Family Court was the adopted brother of Sita Devi's father and there was no reason to doubt the character of Smt. Sita Devi. In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any sufficient ground to justify the giving of beating to Smt. Sita Devi by the petitioner Mohan Ram. Since Smt. Sita Devi appears to have left the house of the petitioner because she was given a beating by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause for leaving the house of the petitioner. 10. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere that Smt. Sita Devi left the house of the petitioner without sufficient cause or that she is staying away from the petitioner without sufficient cause. In other words, Sita Devi had sufficient cause to leave the house of the petitioner because his aggressive conduct pause threat to her person. It is well established that if a wife apprehends danger to her life and limbs or is subjected to cruel treatment, she has got a right to refuse to live with the husband in order to save herself. I am therefore, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case Smt. Sita Devi (non-petitioner No. 1) had sufficient cause to leave the house of the petitioner and started living at her father's house with her daughter Ku. Manju (non-petitioner No. 2). In view of these facts it is the duty of the petitioner to prove maintenance allowance to the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2. 11. Manju (non-petitioner No. 2). In view of these facts it is the duty of the petitioner to prove maintenance allowance to the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2. 11. So far as the amount of maintenance allowance is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court has held that the petitioner is a member of joint family headed by his father and the joint family owns and possesses agricultural land as well as a tractor. Besides, the petitioner is capable of earning money by working as a labourer as was pleaded by him before the Family Court. Keeping in view the cost of various items necessary for keeping body and soul together, it cannot be said that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 300 / - per head to the non-petitioner no. 1 and 2 is excessive. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. This revision petition is devoid of any force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******