ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. Applicants- wife & minor son have filed this revision aggrieved by order dated 14th October, 2011, by which Family Court has rejected the application for grant of maintenance. 3. Application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants against the respondent claiming maintenance on the pleadings inter alia that the applicant No. 1 was maltreated in the matrimonial house and proper care was not taken even during her pregnancy. It has also been pleaded that applicant-wife has been harassed in various ways in connection with demand of refrigerator and motorcycle and with the ill-treatment, she was finally made to set at rest in her parental house, where she gave birth to applicant No.2. It has also been pleaded that during pregnancy or after child was born, the respondent did not take any care and completely ignored to maintain his wife and the newly born child. 4. The allegation made in the application were denied by the responder t by submitting that the applicant-wife is not interested in living with the responder t and she is residing separately without any sufficient reason and, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. It has also been stated that the respondent is willing to take his wife back, but, the applicant-wife herself is not coming to live with the respondent in the matrimonial house. 5. The learned family Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application for grant of maintenance, holding that the applicant- wife has failed to prove that there is sufficient reason for her to live separately. 6. Assailing the aforesaid finding and the order of rejection, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant-wife led oral evidence of maltreatment and neglect before the Court below, but, the same has been rejected on noticing certain contradictions in the evidence, which are not very material or substantial, but trivial in nature. He further submits that despite' specific evidence of neglect, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction towards award of maintenance to the wife and the newly born child, particularly when the applicant is unable to maintain herself. 7. He further submits that despite' specific evidence of neglect, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction towards award of maintenance to the wife and the newly born child, particularly when the applicant is unable to maintain herself. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Family Court and submitted that the contradictions with regard to the manner in which the maltreatment is alleged and the evidence on record, particularly the willingness of the respondent- husband has been made a basis to reject the application, which does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. 8. Applicant No.1 -wife has been examined as A.W.1. In her evidence she has given specific details of the manner in which she was maltreated on account of certain demands and also otherwise in the name of her treatment and care. In her cross-examination, she has specifically denied suggestion that no maltreatment was meted out to her and suggestion that she had gone to her parental house of her own or that there was no dispute between the parties. 9. The learned Family Court has disbelieved the story of the maltreatment as stated by wife- Gangotri Bai (A.W.1) on the ground that there is contradiction with regard to person who had taken her from matrimonial house. This finding is perverse. The wife in her evidence has clearly stated that firstly her brother-in-law taken her for the purposes of treatment and, thereafter, she was taken by her father to the parental house. Moreover, the contradiction is not so material as to completely dislodge and disbelieve the version of the applicant regarding maltreatment meted out to her as stated by her in her testimony. The version is also supported by the evidence of Chanduram Yadav (A. W.2). The other reason assigned in not believing the story is that the demand of refrigerator and motorcycle is improbable, because there is no electricity connection in the matrimonial house. The evidence in this regard has been specific. Only on the ground that electricity is not there, demand of motorcycle cannot b said to be improbable. Otherwise also, that is not the only ground on which he Wife has alleged neglect on the part of the respondent. The specific evidence is with regard to neglect during the period she was pregnant and also after 'Child was born. Only on the ground that electricity is not there, demand of motorcycle cannot b said to be improbable. Otherwise also, that is not the only ground on which he Wife has alleged neglect on the part of the respondent. The specific evidence is with regard to neglect during the period she was pregnant and also after 'Child was born. In the opinion of this Court, such material is sufficient to constitute neglect on the part of the respondent-husband. 10. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, the finding that the applicant-wife has failed to prove sufficient cause for living separately, cannot be sustained in law and is set aside. It is held that the applicant-wife has been residing separately on sufficient cause. 11. The learned Family Court has considered that the respondent-husband is capable to earn and maintain the wife and child. The respondent in his own' pleading, in his reply, has stated that he cultivates 2Y2 /3 acres of agricultural land. His parents are alive and he has one younger brother also in the family. He also stated that he is also engaged in earning by way of work as labour. 12. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence in this regard, it would serve the interest of justice and the need of the applicants that an amount of Rs.l 000/- is awarded to each of them w.e.f. January, 2012. 13. The revision is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 14. Records of the Court below be remitted. Revision Allowed.