P. K. TRIPATHY, P. K. MISRA, JJ. ( 1 ) IN this Civil Appeal appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short, the Act, 1956) in Civil Proceeding No. 52 of 2000 as per the impugned composite judgment delivered on 28-11-2000 in that proceeding along with Civil Proceeding No. 40 of 2000 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act, 1955) filed ,by the present appellant. ( 2 ) MARRIAGE between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 1993 and the respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock. Since May, 1997 matrimonial relationship disrupted and the respondent No. 1 with the minor child has been staying away from the society of the appellant. Appellant filed Civil Proceeding no. 40 of 2000 praying for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that for no just cause respondent No. 1 dissociated from him. On the other hand, respondents filed civil Proceeding No. 52 of ,2000 under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty, desertion and non-maintaining them by the appellant despite having sufficient means. Appellant is a Class-IV employee under the Rourkela Steel Plant and that is an admitted fact. ( 3 ) BOTH the cases were heard analogously and disposed of by the impugned common judgment. Learned Judge, Family Court, rourkela framed the following three issues to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties. (I) Whether the Respondent-wife without any reasonable excuse withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner-husband? (II) Whether the petitioner-husband exerted cruelty on the respondent-wife so as to cause apprehension in the mind of the respondent-wife that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the petitioner? (III) The consequential effect of the aforesaid issues? ( 4 ) IN support of his pleas, appellant examined two witnesses including himself as p. W. 1 and respondents examined two witnesses including respondent No. I as D. W. 1. No documentary evidence was tendered by the parties. (III) The consequential effect of the aforesaid issues? ( 4 ) IN support of his pleas, appellant examined two witnesses including himself as p. W. 1 and respondents examined two witnesses including respondent No. I as D. W. 1. No documentary evidence was tendered by the parties. On the basis of such evidence on record, learned Judge, Family Court, rourkela found that the allegation of illtreatment and cruelty by the appellant on respondent No. 1 has been proved justifying her to stay away from the society of the appellant and therefore, until that apprehension is wiped out, there should not be a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On the basis of the self-same finding and further evidence that the appellant does not provide any maintenance to the respondents though he is an employee under the rourkela Steel Plant and has sufficient income, learned Judge, Family Court, rourkela passed the decree for payment of rs. 600 /- per month towards monthly maintenance to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 350/-per month to respondent No. 2 and made it operative with effect from 1st April, 2000. ( 5 ) APPELLANT argues that when admittedly respondent No. 1 has dissociated herself from the society of the appellant, there could not have been a decree for maintenance. In that context, evidence of the appellant as P. W. 1 is that notwithstanding his abiding by the dictates of respondent No. 1 for dissociating himself from his parents and living separately in different quarters from time to time, respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home and did not return in spite of best efforts. It was suggested to him that it is because of his conduct in coming intoxicated and assaulting and ill-treating her that the respondent No. 1 was compelled to leave to save herself. The evidence of P W. 2 in that respect does not improve the case of the appellant save and except mentioning that in August, 1999 she had approached respondent No. 1 to return to the matrimonial house. On the other hand, in her evidence, respondent No. 1 (D. W. 1) has stated that notwithstanding consummation of marriage and birth of respondent No. 2 out of the wedlock, since the days of marriage, greediness of the appellant continued with demand of money from her parents and some amounts were paid; but ill-treatment continued with physical assault by the appellant. On the demand of Rs. 50. 000/- by the appellant and as her parents had no capacity to fulfill that demand, the ill-treatment towards her by the appellant gave rise to apprehension of life and safety. Therefore, she came and stayed in her parents house. Her father as D. W. 2 lends support to the version of D. W. 1. When the evidence stands at that i. e. oath versus oath, the court is to appreciate the same by preponderance of probability. The evidence of the appellant does not stand to reason that in spite of complying to the dictation of the wife, for no reason, the wife went away from his society. On the other hand, the evidence of the wife that it is only on account of demand of money and ill-treatment that she had to run away from the matrimonial home to save her life stands to reason being plausible. Therefore, when the trial Court has accepted the version of the respondents, it cannot be said that the court below has gone wrong or unreasonable in recording the finding and passing the impugned decree. ( 6 ) UNDER the given circumstances, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.