JUDGMENT Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.07.2010, passed by the learned Family Court, Kota, whereby the learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.12.2008 to the respondent-wife. 2. Mr. Sajid Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner-husband is willing to keep the respondent-wife with him. Moreover, even the father of the respondent-wife had stated before the Family Court that in case the petitioner were to ensure that his maternal cousin brother does not reside with him, he is willing to send his daughter back to her matrimonial home. He has further contended that the respondent-wife is staying away from the petitioner-husband without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should be given to the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. According to the respondent-wife, she had clearly stated that she has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner-husband. When his maternal cousin brother had physically misbehaved with her, she had brought this to the notice of the petitioner-husband. However, instead of protecting her, he assaulted her. It is due to the physical and mental cruelty that she is not willing to go back to the petitioner-husband. In this circum-stances, the learned Court was certainly justified in concluding that she has sufficient and cogent reasons for staying away from her matrimonial home. 5. Since the respondent-wife has sufficient and cogent reason for staying away, this Court does not find any reason for giving the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 6. Hence, this petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.