JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order and decree dated 2.8.1997 passed by VI Addl. Distt. Judge, Raipur in M.J.C. No. 1/96 whereby the Addl. Distt. Judge has awarded Rs. 1,500/- p.m. to the applicant from the date of passing of the order i.e. from 2.8.1997. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the respondent was entitled to the maintenance only if she proves that she has been deserted without reasonable cause or without her consent or against her will. However, issue No. 2 framed by the Court below is to the effect that whether the appellant had kept a concubine Savitri without her consent. It is clear from Section 18(1)(e) that if a person keeps a concubine in the house then the wife is entitled to live separately from her husband. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court came to the conclusion that as there is clear admission of the appellant that he was living with 3 children. He had not said in his evidence that children Bajirao, Divya and Chhaya are the children of the respondent. The natural inference that has to be drawn from this admission on the part of the appellant is that they are children of Savitri who alleged to be living with the appellant. Mere denial of appellant would not be effective to disprove the case of the respondent that the appellant was living with Savitri as his concubine. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant however argued that Rs. 1,500/- p.m. awarded to the respondent is very high, specially in view of the fact that the respondent was given Rs. 500/- p.m. under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Looking to the salary of the appellant amounting Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and that he was also earning Rs. 2,000/- p.m. from letting out a portion of his house, the award of Rs. 1,500/- in addition to Rs. 500/-, does not appear to be excessive. There is no merit in the contention of the Counsel for the appellant. This Court is not prepared to go into the quantum of maintenance as it is not on high side. 5. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.