JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant/husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1993 in Civil Suit No. 32-A/86 (4/89), by Addl. District Judge, Narsinghpur, whereby the suit of the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 was decreed and the defendant/husband has been directed to pay her monthly maintenance @ Rs. 300/-. 2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is the wife of defendant/ appellant. They are undisputably married according to caste custom on Miti Falgun Badi 1 Samwat 2034 at village Chhidamani, Tahsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur. A daughter was begotten from the said wedlock. The daughter however expired at a young age at Chhidamani. 3. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 averred that her husband-the appellant started maltreating her after the birth of the daughter. She was sent back to her parents place while her young daughter was seriously ill. Their daughter died on the next day after the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 reached Chhidamani. Though the plaintiff-wife thereafter continued to go to her matrimonial home, yet (sic.) maltreatment by her husband continued. Ultimately she was sent back on 'Makarsankranti' of 1981 along with her brother. The appellant-husband thereafter did not take care of her and did not bring her back to her matrimonial home despite efforts made by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 and her parents. It was also alleged that the appellant/husband had remarried on 22.6.1985, one Kusum Bai - the daughter of Babulal Patel. The plaintiff/ wife served a notice to the defendant/ appellant for payment of maintenance as also for the return of the 'Stridhan' -ornaments given to her in marriage. The defendant/appellant did not comply with the notice and continued to neglect his wife. Hence, a suit was filed by her claiming maintenance as also return of ornaments constituting her 'Stridhan'. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendant/ appellant. He averred that the plaintiff/ wife herself did not return back to the matrimonial home despite attempts made by the defendant/appellant, on the pretext that she was ill. It was also denied that she was treated with cruelty or that the appellant/husband remarried Kusum Bai. Therefore, according to the appellant/husband the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was not entitled to get any maintenance from him. It was also alleged that the ornaments constituting 'Stridhan' were taken away by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 with her. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. Therefore, according to the appellant/husband the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was not entitled to get any maintenance from him. It was also alleged that the ornaments constituting 'Stridhan' were taken away by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 with her. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The learned Trial Court framed issues as to whether the defendant/ appellant treated the wife/ respondent No. 1 with cruelty, whether the appellant/ husband neglected to maintain or deserted the wife/ respondent No. 1, and whether the appellant/husband has remarried Kusum Bai on 22.6.1985. The* claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 regarding the return of ornaments constituting her 'Stridhan' was also framed. 6. The learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the appellant/husband maltreated the wife/ respondent No. 1 and had deserted and neglected to maintain her since 1981. It was also held that the appellant/husband had remarried Kusum Bai. However, it was held by the learned Trial Court that it was not proved by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 that the ornaments constituting her 'Stridhan' were retained by the appellant/husband. It has further held that the claim for 'Stridhan' was time-barred. Accordingly the prayer of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 regarding the return of ornaments or the price thereof was disallowed. However, her claim for grant of maintenance was allowed and after assessing the financial status of the appellant/husband, a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance was decreed in favour of the wife/respondent No. 1. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ husband has urged that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the appellant/husband treated his wife the respondent No. 1 with cruelty or has deserted her, are not justified. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed on record. It has also been submitted that there is no proof that the appellant/husband remarried Kusum Bai. It has further been urged that the appellant/husband was always ready and willing to keep with him his wife-the respondent No. 1, but on account of refusal of the latter, he is being forced to live separately from her. It has lastly been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the grant of maintenance @ Rs. It has further been urged that the appellant/husband was always ready and willing to keep with him his wife-the respondent No. 1, but on account of refusal of the latter, he is being forced to live separately from her. It has lastly been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the grant of maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month is excessive as the appellant does not have means to pay the above amount. 8. As against the above, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has submitted that the evidence led by the plaintiff/wife clearly indicates that she was continuously maltreated by the appellant/husband who did not make any effort to bring her back, resulting in her living with her parents since 1981. It has also been submitted that it has been established from the evidence on record that the appellant/husband had remarried Kusum Bai and, therefore, the decree granting maintenance in favour of wife/respondent No. 1 was fully justified. 9. The pleadings of the parties would go to indicate that the plaintiff/wife averred that after the birth of her daughter, her husband-the appellant started maltreating her and sent her back to her parents' home, where her young daughter died due to ailment. Thereafter, though the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 continued to visit the matrimonial home, but the maltreatment by the appellant/husband and his family members persisted and ultimately she was made to go to her parents' home in the early part of 1981, where she continued to live till filing of the suit. The appellant/husband did not take care and neglected to maintain her and did not pay any amount for her livelihood. The appellant/defendant was denied the above allegations in his written statement. 10. From the statement of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (P.W. 1), her averments are fully established. It would appear therefrom that while her daughter aged about 2 months was seriously ill, she was sent back to her parents' home by the appellant/ husband. On the next day her young daughter died. She has further stated that thereafter for a period of about 2-3 years, she continued to visit her matrimonial home, but she was continuously manhandled and maltreated by the husband, as would be clear from paras 1 and 3 of her statement. On the next day her young daughter died. She has further stated that thereafter for a period of about 2-3 years, she continued to visit her matrimonial home, but she was continuously manhandled and maltreated by the husband, as would be clear from paras 1 and 3 of her statement. She has stated that ultimately she was sent back by the appellant/husband to her parents' home from where she was not taken back despite messages sent by her father. Thereafter, she continued to live with her parents. Her statement is amply supported by the statement of her brother Tirath Singh (P.W. 4), who has stated that her sister was sent back forcibly along with him with her young daughter. The daughter of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 died on the next day after the plaintiff/wife reached her parents' home. He has also stated that thereafter also the appellant and his family members used to maltreat the plaintiff Tekwati Bai {P.W. 1). It would also appear from his statement that his sister Tekwati Bai continues to live with him for the last 7-8 years. Similarly the above statements are also corroborated by the statement of Mihilal (P,W. 2) and Nirpat Singh (P.W. 3). 11. The appellant/husband Ram Singh though has denied that he used to maltreat or has deserted his wife-the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, but he has admitted that his wife/respondent No. 1 is living with her parents since 1981 i.e., for more than about 12 years. The appellant/husband has also admitted that a notice was served by his wife Tekwati Bai for taking her back, yet he did not take any steps to fetch her to his home. He has also admitted that he did not send any reply to the said notice served by his wife Tekwati Bai. The above conduct of the" appellant/ husband clearly shows that despite efforts made by the wife/respondent No. 1 the appellant/husband did not care to bring her back. 12. In view of above, the stand taken, by the appellant/husband and his statement that the wife/respondent No. 1 herself did not come back to the matrimonial home stands wholly belied and cannot be relied upon. 12. In view of above, the stand taken, by the appellant/husband and his statement that the wife/respondent No. 1 herself did not come back to the matrimonial home stands wholly belied and cannot be relied upon. It may also be noticed in the above context that though the appellant/defendant examined Gangaram (D.W. 1) and Roop Singh (D.W. 2) to show that he made efforts for bringing back his wife/respondent No. 1, but their statements are vague and general in nature, and did not specify as to when they had gone to bring back Tekwati Bai. Moreover, it may be noticed that the pleadings of the appellant/ husband do not specify that Gangaram (D.W. 1) and Roop Singh (D.W. 2) were sent for bringing back the wife/respondent No. 1. It may be noticed in the above connection that the appellant/husband had pleaded in para 5 of his statement that he and his father tried to bring back the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. Therefore, the statement of Gangaram (D.W. 1) and Roop Singh (D.W. 2) that they had gone to fetch the wife of appellant is not supported by the pleading of the appellant/defendant. Therefore, the above statements do not deserve any credence and cannot be relied upon. It would thus be clear that the appellant/defendant did not take steps to bring back his wife/respondent No. 1 to his home. 13. Clearly, therefore, the assertion and the evidence of wife/respondent No. 1 deserves credence that the appellant/husband did not take care of her and did not bring her to his home and refused or neglected to maintain her. It would also appear that the wife/respondent No. 1 is living separately from her husband for a long period since 1981. The appellant/defendant has not shown any reason as to why he has not taken back his wife, and has also not shown any reason as to why she was forced to live separately. Therefore, the assertion of the wife/respondent No. 1 and the evidence led by her deserve to be relied upon that she was maltreated by the husband-the appellant, and has been left at the mercy of her parents. The appellant/ husband did not take care of his wife-plaintiff /respondent No. 1 and failed to discharge his obligation of maintaining her. 14. Therefore, the assertion of the wife/respondent No. 1 and the evidence led by her deserve to be relied upon that she was maltreated by the husband-the appellant, and has been left at the mercy of her parents. The appellant/ husband did not take care of his wife-plaintiff /respondent No. 1 and failed to discharge his obligation of maintaining her. 14. In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding cruelty and maltreatment by the husband/defendant appear to be just and proper and deserve to be confirmed. So far as remarriage of the appellant/ husband is concerned, the assertion of the wife was that her husband/defendant has married Kusum Bai, daughter of Babulal. However, there is no positive evidence in that regard. No person of the neighbourhood who had seen Kusum Bai living with her husband-the appellant, or any person who witnessed their marriage has been examined. The appellant/husband has denied the above allegation. 15. In the circumstances, it would appear that the respondent/wife has not led adequate and cogent evidence to show that the appellant/husband has married Kusum Bai. However, even if that be so, since the appellant/ husband has treated her with cruelty and has deserted her, and has also neglected or refused to maintain the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1, he was liable to pay maintenance to her. 16. The appellant/husband owns agricultural land and is village Post-Master. The learned Trial Court after considering his earnings and financial status has assessed and awarded a decree of maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month. Considering the evidence on record and the financial status of the parties, the above amount of maintenance appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference. 17. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree granting maintenance in favour of respondent No. I/wife appears to be proper and deserves to be maintained. This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall pay cost of this appeal to the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- if certified.