JUDGMENT 1. Both the parties present through their respective counsel. On being inquired non-applicant Rambahadur has expressed his inability to pay the maintenance granted by the First Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court at Indore on 6.7.2007. The non-applicant Rambahadur states that he is a retired person and does not have any source of livelihood, whereas applicant wife is dependent on the earning of all sons with whom she is residing separately. The applicant wife Vimlabai has however, stated that petitioner No.2 Kumari Prem Lata aged 20 years is a mentally retarded child and her maintenance is not being borne by the brothers and hence she is in acute need of money to look after the applicant No.2, Kumari Prem Lata. The non-applicant has abandoned his duties and he does not pay a single farthing to her despite receiving pension. 2. On considering the above, I do not think that there is any chance of rehabilitation and Court had already directed the case for final hearing in the month of January on 7.1.2008. 3. In view of the above, the matter is taken up on consent finally. On perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment and considering the submissions of both the counsel, I find that it is an unfortunate case where there is serious dispute between husband and wife. Both being quite aged and adamant and refusing to re-conciliate to the facts of life and from the record as well as impugned judgment, it is luminescent that wife is living with her children and the husband has been driven out of his home for reasons not known or not necessary for the decision of this revision. What remains to be adjudicated is that all the children have become major now except the fact that petitioner No.2, Ku. Premlata although a major is mentally retarded and needs care and looking after. There is no getting away from the fact that the respondent husband Rambahadur is responsible for her maintenance even if other facts are disregarded. 4. On perusal of the records, I do not find any evidence regarding his I income. Apparently, he is a retired person and allegations by wife are that he earns his livelihood by singing and playing musical instruments I with certain band of music. 4. On perusal of the records, I do not find any evidence regarding his I income. Apparently, he is a retired person and allegations by wife are that he earns his livelihood by singing and playing musical instruments I with certain band of music. However, there are no documents or evidence on record or any reference in the testimony of petitioner Vimlabai herself. 5. In view of the above, I find that it is a fit case for remand to the Family Court for finding on this issue whether at present the husband Rambahadur has any income from which maintenance could be paid to petitioner No.2, Ku. Premlata. 6. In view of the above, this revision is remanded to the Family Court to give its finding on this issue after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from today. Both the parties will remain present on 24th of March, 2008 before the Family Court.