JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 passed by Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), filed by wife/respondent, Smt. Saroj has been allowed and husband/appellant, Inder Singh has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards maintenance. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent, Smt. Saroj filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Family Court, Jodhpur, alleging that she married with non-applicant on 22nd January, 1999. It was further averred in the application that she was only 35 years of age at the time of marriage, whereas age of the non-applicant, at the time of marriage, was 52 to 53 years. The non-applicant was having two married and two unmarried daughters. It was also averred that non-applicant started harassing the applicant with connivance of his daughters and ultimately, she was ousted from the house on 28th April, 1999. It was also averred that non-applicant had treated the applicant in a cruel manner. It was further alleged that salary of the non-applicant is about Rs. 11,000/- per month, therefore, she is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. The application was contested by the non-applicant/appellant by filing written reply, wherein it was averred that from the date of marriage, the applicant started misbehaving with the non-applicant. It was also alleged that the non-applicant gave gold and silver ornaments to the applicant at the time of marriage, which, she sent to her mother and at present, she is living with her parents. The allegations regarding cruelty were denied. The allegation with regard to cruel behaviour of his daughters was also denied. So far as income part is concerned, it was stated that the non-applicant is getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,500/-, after certain statutory deductions. It was also alleged that the applicant is already earning Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled for any monthly amount towards maintenance. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Family Court framed three issues, which are reproduced in the order of the Family Court. In support of its case, the applicant examined A.W.1, Saroj; A.W.2, Lalit Kachhwaha; A.W.3, Mahendra Singh and A.W.4, Ramesh. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled for any monthly amount towards maintenance. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Family Court framed three issues, which are reproduced in the order of the Family Court. In support of its case, the applicant examined A.W.1, Saroj; A.W.2, Lalit Kachhwaha; A.W.3, Mahendra Singh and A.W.4, Ramesh. The Non-applicant examined N.A.W.1, Inder Singh; N.A.W.2, Rukma Devi; N.A.W.3, Daulat Ram and N.A.W.4, Bhagwan Singh. Learned Family Court after considering the evidence on record, decided Issue No. 1, relating to cruelty, in part, in favour of the applicant. So far as Issue No. 2 is concerned, the Family Court awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards monthly maintenance from the date of order to the applicant, while allowing the application vide judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009. Being aggrieved with the same, the husband has preferred this appeal. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is suffering from paralytic attack and he has already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He submitted that a decree has already been passed in his favour and it shows that the appellant is willing to keep his wife with him. He also submitted that the respondent made certain allegations with regard to illicit relation with his own daughters and sister-in-law, which were absolutely false and even, as per findings recorded by the Family Court, are not proved. In these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. 7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the findings recorded by the Family Court. We have also examined the statements of A.W.1, Saroj; A.W.2, Lalit Kachwaha; A.W.3, Mahendra Singh and A.W.4, Ramesh and also the statements of N.A.W.1, Inder Singh; N.A.W.2, Rukma Devi; N.A.W.3, Daulat Ram and N.A.W.4, Bhagwan Singh. 9. Learned Family Court, while discussing Issue No. 1, has considered the evidence available on record and recorded a finding that issue of cruelty is only partly proved. 9. Learned Family Court, while discussing Issue No. 1, has considered the evidence available on record and recorded a finding that issue of cruelty is only partly proved. We have examined the finding recorded by the Family Court in the light of statements of witnesses of both the parties and we find that the finding, recorded by the Family Court, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner whatsoever. Statements of witnesses have been considered in detail and only thereafter, a finding has been recorded by the Family Court. Therefore, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Family Court in respect of Issue No. 1 is just and reasonable. 10. So far as finding of Issue No. 2, relating to award of maintenance, is concerned, we find that as per the statement of A.W.1, Smt. Saroj, her husband was working as Sub-Inspector in CID, Jodhpur. He retired from service in the year 2002. Earlier, he was getting salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month and after retirement, he was getting pension of Rs. 7,000/-. She has also stated that her husband is having monthly rental income of Rs. 10,000/-. She has stated that total monthly income of her husband is about Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-. 11. So far as statement of N.A.W.1, Inder Singh is concerned, he has stated that his pension is about Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, he has not placed on record his pension payment statement about exact amount of his pension. Learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife. Statement of A.W.1, Smt. Saroj was recorded on 27th September, 2003 and statement of N.A.W. 1, Inder Singh was recorded on 10 April, 2007. It is well known that recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission were made effective from 1st January, 2006 and amount of salary as well as pension has been increased tremendously. During the course of arguments, we specifically put a question to learned counsel for the appellant, as to how much amount the appellant is getting towards pension today, but, he is unable to give any satisfactory reply in this regard. 12. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to award of monthly maintenance of Rs. 12. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to award of monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner whatsoever. We find that order passed by the Family Court in this regard is just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. In view of above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******