JUDGMENT A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. This appeal is directed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.93/2007 by the V Addl. Judge, Principal Family Court, Bangalore, in O.S.No.9307/2007 dated 21.11.2011. 2. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned Judge has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondents herein with effect from 02.07.2007 till 21.11.2011 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.3,500/-p.m. from the date of the judgment. It is this judgment and decree which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 3. Appellant is the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and second respondent is the daughter of the appellant and the first respondent. The marriage of the appellant and the first respondent was solemnized on 21.04.1996 at Bangalore, according to the Hindu customs and second petitioner was born in October 1998. The first respondent lived in the house of the appellant till 2004. As the appellant started harassing her to bring additional dowry and since the family members of the appellant also started harassing her and her child, she had to leave the house and since then, she has been living with her daughter in the house of her parents. According to her, the first defendant-appellant is in the company of bad people and was in the habit of returning to home late in the night and picking up unnecessary quarrels. Since then she has been residing in a rented house bearing No.16, 9th Main, 1st Cross, K.B. Nagara, Bangalore-26 paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. It is her case that her parents are unable to maintain her and the second plaintiff. 4. It is her case that the appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in M.C.No.1805/2004 for restitution of conjugal rights and was withdrawn by him at a later stage, even without making any provision for the payment of interim monthly maintenance, though he had been ordered to pay. He is working in a Factory and also doing catering business and his income, according to the first respondent, is more than Rs.10,000/- p.m. It is her case that himself and his father have been getting more than Rs.12,000/- p.m. as rental income and also agricultural lands in Bidarekere Village of Nagamangala Taluk. He is working in a Factory and also doing catering business and his income, according to the first respondent, is more than Rs.10,000/- p.m. It is her case that himself and his father have been getting more than Rs.12,000/- p.m. as rental income and also agricultural lands in Bidarekere Village of Nagamangala Taluk. It is her case that they are getting more than Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. from agriculture. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is required for her maintenance and a sum of Rs.2,000/- is required for her daughter. 5. The appellant chose to file written statement admitting the relationship, denying all material averments in regard to the allegations made against him in the plaint. He is stated to be working on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and that he would get work only during auspicious seasons. It is his case that the first respondent demanded him to have a separate residence and quarreled with him and refused to co-habitate with him and deserted him on 15.04.2004. She is stated to have left his house stating that she had to attend the marriage of her elder brother Mangegowda and thereafter, refused to join him. Therefore, he had filed a petition M.C.No.1805/2004 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has specifically denied all the allegations made against him in regard to the alleged demand for dowry and receipt of dowry and assaulting her. A panchayat had been convened and she had agreed to join him and thereafter, he had to withdraw the said petition. He had prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the above pleadings following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 prove that the defendant No.1 as the husband of the 1st one and the father of the 2nd one neglected to maintain them? 2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 proves that both are entitled to get the maintenance amount from the defendant No.1 as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff No.1 proves that the defendants have got the suit schedule immovable property in their name and are trying to create charge thereon to avoid payments towards maintenance? 4. Whether the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get the relief of getting the maintenance amount as prayed for on the charge of the suit schedule property? 7. Whether the plaintiff No.1 proves that the defendants have got the suit schedule immovable property in their name and are trying to create charge thereon to avoid payments towards maintenance? 4. Whether the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get the relief of getting the maintenance amount as prayed for on the charge of the suit schedule property? 7. The first respondent has been examined as PW1 and the appellant is not examined before the Trial Court. 21 exhibits have been got marked on her behalf. 8. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judge has answered issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and issue No.4 as partly affirmative. Accordingly, the suit is decreed. 9. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo. 10. It is contended that the Trial Court has not properly analysed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and that it has failed to take into consideration that the appellant has studied upto 7th Standard only and he is a cook by profession. It is contended that the learned Trial Judge has unnecessarily come to the conclusion that he has monthly income ranging from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and that it is not based on ground realities. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is stated to be opposed on law, facts and probabilities and hence it is prayed to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit in its entirety. It is further argued that when the first respondent herself has deserted him without any rhyme or reason, the question of granting maintenance does not arise. 11. On going through the records and hearing the arguments, the following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the learned Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has neglected to maintain the respondents and therefore, he is liable to pay the amount of maintenance as awarded by the Trial Court? 2. Whether any interference is called for by this Court and if so, to what extent? Re. Point No.1: 12. The relationship between the appellant and the first respondent is admitted. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.1996. The second respondent was born in October 1998. The fact that first respondent lived with the appellant till 15.04.2004 is not in dispute. 2. Whether any interference is called for by this Court and if so, to what extent? Re. Point No.1: 12. The relationship between the appellant and the first respondent is admitted. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.1996. The second respondent was born in October 1998. The fact that first respondent lived with the appellant till 15.04.2004 is not in dispute. What is averred by the plaintiff-first respondent is that the first defendant-appellant started harassing her and pressurizing her to bring additional dowry. Insofar as this allegation is concerned, there is oath and counter-oath and no substantial evidence is forthcoming in regard to the allegation of demand for dowry or receipt for dowry. 13. Be that as it may. The appellant and the first respondent are not in cordial terms and she left the house of the appellant on 15.04.2004. Even if we consider that the first respondent had left the house without any rhyme or reason, we will have to note as to what exactly were the steps taken by him to get her back. It is his case that he had filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.1805/2004 before the Family Court at Bangalore. It is to be seen that the said petition came to be withdrawn by him since she had agreed to join him in the panchayat before the panchayatdars. Except this oral assertion, we do not find any evidence to substantiate the same. It is also forthcoming from the evidence of PW1 that a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion was also filed by him and later on, it was also withdrawn. Why was it withdrawn is also not forthcoming. Though there is no document to that effect placed on record by the first respondent herein, the same cannot be disputed as that fact is not seriously challenged while cross-examining her. Suggestions put to her that she has left the house on her own and that he had never harassed her has been specifically denied. 14. It is also forthcoming that the Trial Court had ordered him to pay monthly interim maintenance and instead of paying the same, he withdrew the petition filed in M.C.No.1805/2004. If really he was honest to get her back and if there was no fault on his behalf, he would not have withdrawn the petition. 14. It is also forthcoming that the Trial Court had ordered him to pay monthly interim maintenance and instead of paying the same, he withdrew the petition filed in M.C.No.1805/2004. If really he was honest to get her back and if there was no fault on his behalf, he would not have withdrawn the petition. On the other hand, he would have pursued the petition before the Court and he would have obtained an order under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The fact that he chose to withdraw even the petition filed for divorce on the ground of desertion would also speak in volumes against him. This conduct would go to show that he did not take any positive steps to get her back and the neglect in maintaining her can be inferred on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Trial Court has discussed about these factual aspects in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment. Even otherwise it is to be seen that appellant did not examine himself before the trial court to substantiate his stand taken in the written statement. Thus an adverse inference will have to be drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said reasoning based on factual assessment. If he was really honest, he would have made an attempt before the Court to get some visitation rights atleast. There may be differences between the husband and wife, but no parent will try to ignore the welfare of the child or children. Here is an appellant who has not at all taken care of his young daughter who needs not only physical comforts, but also parental love and affection. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant herein has neglected to maintain the respondents. 15. It is true that the first respondent has not been able to produce any documentary evidence in regard to the probable monthly income that the appellant is getting or was getting. The suit came to be filed in the year 2007. According to him, he was a part-time cook and was getting only Rs.2,000/-p.m. He has also not placed any evidence to that effect. The suit came to be filed in the year 2007. According to him, he was a part-time cook and was getting only Rs.2,000/-p.m. He has also not placed any evidence to that effect. The fact that he was aged about 32 years during 2007 and that he was hale and healthy and he still continues to be hale and healthy is not in dispute. Admittedly, he is a cook in Bangalore. There is a great demand for persons who have the knowledge of cooking food either vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Even a hotel supplier in Bangalore will get not less than Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-p.m. along with other comforts. In the light of the first plaintiff not placing any acceptable evidence in regard to the income of her husband, we cannot non-suit her. In this regard, the advice given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Pande and Others Vs. Collector, Raigarh reported in AIR 1969 SC 255 is relevant. While discussing Section 3 of the Evidence Act in regard to the appreciation of the oral evidence in compensation cases, it is held that in assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call into aid their experience in life. It is further held that as Judge of fact, it is open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 16. Paragraph-6 in page-257 of Chaturbhuj's case is relevant and the same is extracted hereinbelow: "6. .........It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have not been effectively cross-examined. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not mean that the Court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers. In assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call into aid their experience of life. As Judge of fact it was open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabilities." 17. Thus the learned Judge has assessed the probable income of the appellant ranging between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-p.m. and the same is based on broad preponderance of probabilities. As Judge of fact it was open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabilities." 17. Thus the learned Judge has assessed the probable income of the appellant ranging between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-p.m. and the same is based on broad preponderance of probabilities. In fact, even if he had assessed at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m., this Court would not have found fault with, moreso, in the light of the wages of an ordinary coolie in Bangalore. Taking into consideration all this, the Trial Court has ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as maintenance from 02.07.2007 till 21.11.2011 the day on which the suit was decreed and later on to pay at the rate of Rs.3,500/-p.m. from the date of judgment. 18. Taking into consideration the cost of living in Bangalore and the minimum requirement of two sets of clothes per year and two square meals and the minimum educational expenses of growing girl aged about 13 years, the amount of maintenance awarded cannot be considered as either excessive or exorbitant. It is reasonable and is based on proper assessment of evidence. Hence, we answer issue No.1 in the affirmative. Re. Point No.2: 19. In view of our affirmative finding on point No.1, no interference is absolutely called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.93/2007 by the V Additional Judge, Principal Family Court, at Bangalore, is confirmed. In view of the relationship of the parties, we pass no order as to costs.