Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material that has been placed on record by the plaintiff appellant and there being no evidence led by the respondents, the proceedings having been taken ex-parte, we are satisfied that there is no error in the Judgment under appeal. 2. According to the material on record and the finding reached by the learned Judge, Family Court that the husband and wife are living separately for last 12 to 15 years, the application for custody has been filed only in 2000 and that too as per the statement of the appellant in the Court as PW. 1 when he came to know form the neighbours of his wife who is living with her brother that his children are not going to school which fact has been belied by the progress reports of the children which have come on record earlier that the children are regularly going to school and are scoring good marks in the respective classes. 3. From the statement of the applicant, it appears that he himself does not have any means. He has not taken any care to maintain his children since they started living separately. He has not even tried to send the maintenance to his wife and children. Whereas his brother with whom he is living alleges that the applicant had sent Rs. 10,000/-, he himself does not utter any word that he ever sent maintenance money to his wife and children. He has levelled allegation of bad character of wife but has not led any evidence to that effect and nor it is establishment from the record. The finding in that regard, in accordance with the record, is that the children are living away from the applicant for more than 12 years and he has not taken care for long years after separation to take his children and the fact that children are being properly looked after by their mother and their education is taken care of by her. 4. In these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Judge, Family Court that the interest of the children welfare require that they continue to remain with their mother, does not call for interference. 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.