P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this revision against the judgment D/- 30-9-1991 in Misc. Case No. 149 of 1991 u/s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1971 (in short, 'the Code') of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela. This revision application was initially registered as Crl. Revision No. 59 of 1992. On an application filed by the petitioner it was registered as Crl. Appeal No. 83 of 1992. However, as per the Court's order No. 15 dated 22-4-1994 read with order No. 17 dt. 25-3-1994 it was again registered as Crl. Revision No. 189 of 1994. This revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission on the consent and active participation of both the parties. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 is the legal married wife of the petitioner. She filed the aforesaid misc. case u/s. 125 of the Code claiming for monthly maintenance from the petitioner. No relief was claimed against opposite parties 2 and 3 who were the employers of the petitioner. Since they were made opposite parties in the misc. case u/s. 125 of the Code therefore they have also been made parties in this revision. Learned counsel representing the opposite parties 2 and 3 appeared and stated that the Managing Director or the Chief Superintendent of the Rourkela Steel Plant (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3) have nothing to do in the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 1 conceded to the said statement. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the petitioner and alleging cruelty, negligence and refusal to maintain by the petitioner prayed for monthly maintenance. Petitioner without disputing the relationship contested the case denying to the allegations of cruelty, desertion and refusal to maintain opposite party No. 1. ( 4 ) IT is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that after having a peaceful conjugal life between him and opposite party No. 1 and getting four sons and three daughters out of the wedlock, of late the opposite party No. 1 has become atrocious in her attitude and wanted to have absolute control over the purse and the retirement benefit which the petitioner got. Keeping in view the needs and the necessities in the family besides the marriages of the daughters petitioner did not yield to t he pressure of opposite party No. 1 and being vindictive from that circumstances opposite party No. 1 did not behave rationally and with false allegations filed the misc. case claiming for maintenance though she was all along staying with the petitioner in the same quarters provided by the employer and though she was provided with food, clothings and comforts of the life. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that learned Judge, Family Court without properly assessing the evidence of the petitioner and the children who appeared and deposed in his favour, blindly accepted the statements of opposite party No. 1 as the 'gospel Truth' and granted the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. According to him when there is no negligence or refusal to maintain by the petitioner learned Judge, Family Court should not have allowed the monthly maintenance to opposite party No. 1. In that context, he took the Court through various observations made by learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 without much disputing the criticism of the impugned judgment argued that the facts and circumstances which are apparent on the face of the record clearly show that there has been disruption of conjugal life between the parties and admittedly opposite party No. 1 is no more staying with the petitioner. An old lady in the late fifties has to depend upon the monthly maintenance which the petitioner as the husband is bound to provide being capable of providing that. He accordingly prayed not to interfere with the impugned judgment. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the provision of law u/s. 125 of the Code if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who has no independent or other source of income to sustain her livelihood then the Magistrate (Judge, Family Court in this case) may upon proof of such facts allow monthly maintenance not exceeding Rs. 500/- in the whole. ( 7 ) IN the present case the relationship between the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner has sufficient means to maintain opposite party No. 1. 500/- in the whole. ( 7 ) IN the present case the relationship between the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner has sufficient means to maintain opposite party No. 1. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 is entitled to maintenance if she has proved that she has been neglected or refused to be maintained and that she has no source of income to substantiate her livelihood. So far as the source of income of opposite party No. 1 is concerned, as rightly found by the learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned judgment, though petitioner alleged about a fixed deposit being available in favour of the petitioner but no documentary evidence was adduced in proof thereof. Petitioner has also not stated that opposite party No. 1 has any other source of income. Therefore, that issue stands in favour of opposite party No. 1. ( 8 ) PETITIONER has alleged that there was no refusal or negligence to maintain the opposite party No. 1. It appears from the impugned judgment that after retirement petitioner has not only left the quarter at Rourkela but also has come away from Rourkela and is staying with one of his sons at Deogaon whereas opposite party No. 1 is not staying with him or any of the children. This factual findings has not been challenged to be incorrect or false. When opposite party No. 1 has been left in that helpless condition learned Judge, Family Court has rightly accepted that as the circumstance proving the factum of both refusal and negligence in maintaining her. The aforesaid approach of learned Judge. Family Court can neither be regarded as illegal or perverse. ( 9 ) IT is not necessary for this Court to enter into the area for searching out the reasons as to who is at fault for such conjugal split up between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1. In that connection, the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court may not be absolutely or substantially correct but that does not upset correctness of the order in granting maintenance to the opposite party No. 1. She has alleged and stated in her evidence regarding the cruel treatment meted towards her by the petitioner by refusing a normal conjugal life of cohabitation for a period of about eight years. She has alleged and stated in her evidence regarding the cruel treatment meted towards her by the petitioner by refusing a normal conjugal life of cohabitation for a period of about eight years. That aspect as it appears from the impugned judgment, has not been denied in his evidence by the petitioner. That circumstance gives a valid presumption that every thing is not well between the spouses relating to their conjugal life and consequentially petitioner deserted her and came away from Rourkela. It may be that either the petitioner or the opposite party No. 1 is alone responsible for that unfortunate circumstances of that both of them are equally responsible. Be that as it may, but the fact remains about dissatisfaction of one on the other resulting in negligence on the part of the petitioner to properly maintain the opposite party No. 1. ( 10 ) LEARNED Judge, Family Court has further observed that opposite party No. 1 is a diabetic patient. She has taken into consideration the cost of living and accordingly awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/ -. It cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. ( 11 ) ON an analysis of the facts and the findings recorded by the Judge, Family Court vis-a-vis the provision of law u/s. 125 of the Code, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the order granting maintenance in favour of opposite party No. 1. The revision is thus not admitted and accordingly dismissed. ( 12 ) THIS Court thus feels that efforts should be made if not by any body else, at least by the grown up children of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 to have an amicable settlement between their father and the mother so that in the 4th stage of their life both of them may get some peace. As it appears providing Rs. 500/- per month may not be of any difficulty for the petitioner and similarly by obtaining Rs. 500/- per month opposite party No. 1 is not conquering the World. What they need is a peaceful life in this old age. The bondage of human relationship nay the family life always teaches the principle of forget and forgive. It is hoped that at least the petitioner should make initiative in that respect through their children. Petition dismissed.