JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed an interim maintenance to be paid to both respondent Nos. 1 & 2, wife and son, respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is the wife who had left the matrimonial home of her own volition. Moreover, the petitioner is willing to keep the respondent with him. Therefore, he cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the maintenance amount to the wife and the child. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that according to the wife, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Therefore, she had approached the Court for protection. After a compromise was reached between the couple, she gotten back to her matrimonial home. But, again in March, 2008, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home. Ever since then, she is unable to maintain herself and the child. Thus, she left the matrimonial home due to sheer necessity. Secondly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is willing to keep the wife is not an answer to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thirdly, the order being challenged is an interim maintenance order. The pros and cons of the case can only be decided by the learned Judge after going through the evidence. Therefore, the defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this initial stage. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. According to the impugned order, the wife has given cogent reasons for staying away from the husband. According to her, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Therefore, at the initial stage, the defence being taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is subject to the evidence which would be lead by both the parties before the Court. 6. The willingness to keep the wife is often a defence raised by the husband. However, such a defence is clearly self-contradictory. For, on the one hand, the husband is willing to keep the wife and yet on the other hand he wants to wriggle out of his liability to pay the maintenance amount. 6. The willingness to keep the wife is often a defence raised by the husband. However, such a defence is clearly self-contradictory. For, on the one hand, the husband is willing to keep the wife and yet on the other hand he wants to wriggle out of his liability to pay the maintenance amount. However, in fact, if he surely wanted to keep the wife even in such a situation he would have to spend money upon her for maintenance. But, the husband abdicates from his responsibility to maintain her. 7. Thus, this is more a superstitious ploy than a genuine justification. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 23.02.2010. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******