JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By the present appeal the appellant had challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 5, Pune in Petition No. C-16/1999, whereby the petition was partly allowed with costs and the respondent Subhash was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner / appellant from the month of filing of the petition i.e. from February 1999 on wards. 3. The appellant filed a petition under section 18 B and 20 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. The contention of the appellant is that she was married to respondent Subhash on 2.5.1980 at Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. Two children Sandip and Sumit were born out of the wedlock. Both the children were residing with the respondent Subhash, who is native of Ahmednagar. Respondent is serving in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The parties got separated from each other in the month of September 1993. The appellant started residing thereafter at Pune along with her relatives. The parties contested various petitions including custody, separation and maintenance proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Family Court, Pune. The petitioner contends that after marriage the respondent and her relatives were insisting for dowry gifts. According to the petitioner the respondent is a short tampered person. He used to insult and beat the petitioner time and again. He was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to abuse and ill treat her. In-laws were demanding valuables and articles from her. The petitioner could not tolerate ill treatment beyond certain limits. 4. It is submitted that the appellant had no source of income. She is educated upto VIIIth Std. She has to maintain herself. She was suffering due to health problems. According to the appellant, the respondent was serving in Corporation and drawing salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- at the relevant time. He had no dependents except the children. He owns a big house at Ahmednagar, therefore she claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. 5. The respondent has filed his written statement. He denied the allegations. He admitted the marriage. According to the respondent the appellant was not taking care of the extended family. After marriage she was complaining about the responsibilities of the extended family. He owns a big house at Ahmednagar, therefore she claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. 5. The respondent has filed his written statement. He denied the allegations. He admitted the marriage. According to the respondent the appellant was not taking care of the extended family. After marriage she was complaining about the responsibilities of the extended family. The appellant was insisting that the entire salary shall be handed over to her. At times appellant used to visit his office and raise quarrel. On her own the appellant left the house in anger on 10.8.1993 and thereafter she did not return home. The respondent submits that she is in business of selling saris etc. She conducts tuition classes, therefore she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 6. The appellant examined herself on oath before the court. She was cross-examined. The brothers of the appellant were examined by the respondent who had spoken against her behaviour. It seems that there is a family dispute and relations between the appellant and her brothers are strained. The appellant did not get share in the sale proceeds of the agricultural land which were ancestral. 7. Respondent has referred to a letter written by the appellant's sister Mangal Mule to the appellant (Exhibit 37/11). It was narrated before the court that the said Mangal Mule was not residing with her husband Vivek Mule as she was having apprehension that the appellant and Vivek had developed intimacy. Mangal Mule was not examined by either party. 8. Complaints were made by the parties to police which show that the relations between the parties had deteriorated. The respondent examined himself on the lines of his pleading. Some letters were placed on record. The respondent had filed divorce petition but the same came to be withdrawn as there were talks of settlement between the parties. At that relevant time the husband had issued a chit in the name of appellant agreeing to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month. It is a matter of fact that the appellant's earlier petition filed for maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the family court on the ground that she is doing tailoring work and had investment of Rs.25,000/- under different monthly income schemes. The High Court confirmed the said order in criminal writ petition no. 900 of 1995. 9. The High Court confirmed the said order in criminal writ petition no. 900 of 1995. 9. Considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, we will have to take into account the actual earning of the respondent. His salary slips are placed on record for the year 2001-2002. After deductions the gross salary was Rs.11,000/- at the relevant time. It is pertinent to mention that at the time when the respondent withdrew his petition for dissolution of marriage / divorce, he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.900/- to the appellant for household expenses. The letter addressed to the court (Exhibit 42) mentions that the respondent had withdrawn the said petition and agreed to pay amount of Rs.900/- for household expenses including expenses for entire family, children, old aged mother and the respondent. The family court observed that the said amount was not to be paid towards maintenance exclusively for appellant Seema. 10. In the deposition the appellant stated in paragraph 15 as under: 15. Respondent Subhash is serving with M.S.R.T.C. as an accountant at Ahmednagar. At present, he is drawing salary at Rs.18000/- to 20000/- p.m. He is also having own house. I have learnt that the respondent has now started a booth of telephone. In the circumstances, I submit that maintenance @ Rs.5000/- p.m. be granted to me from the respondent from the date of filing of present petition. 11. The respondent Subhash stated before the court in paragraph 20 as under: 20. Now I am shown a chit (not filed earlier in the proceedings), upon perusal of the same, I say that it is in my own handwriting. In the said chit, I had written that I was going to withdraw the divorce proceeding and would continue to pay her maintenance @ Rs.900/- p.m. (At this stage, the learned advocate for the petitioner is producing the said chit. The witness admits the same to be under his own signature and in his own handwriting. It is at exh. 42). In the month of February, 1998, petitioner Seema's father was admitted to Prayag Hospital, Pune. I sent the first notice to petitioner Seema during the said period. Petitioner Seema's father died on 2.3.1998. I issued second notice to petitioner on 15.3.1998. It is not true to say that I sent the notices to petitioner Seema, intentionally during the said critical period. I sent the first notice to petitioner Seema during the said period. Petitioner Seema's father died on 2.3.1998. I issued second notice to petitioner on 15.3.1998. It is not true to say that I sent the notices to petitioner Seema, intentionally during the said critical period. It is not true to say that therefore, in those circumstances, petitioner Seema could not reply my notices.......... 12. We have perused the reasonings adopted by the family court. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the family court as regards the entitlement of the appellant to get maintenance amount from the respondent. The evidence brought on record demonstrates that the appellant is required to be paid maintenance by the respondent. The respondent was working in Corporation drawing a reasonably sound salary. Considering the background of the matter, the antecedents, and the cost of living, which has grown gradually these years, the amount of maintenance ought to have been more than what was granted by the family court. 13. Unfortunately even after repeated adjournments, none appeared for the respondent. The appeal is pending since the year 2005. 14. In the result, we pass following order: ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The respondent shall pay to the appellant, Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) per month from the date of original Petition No.C-16/1999 i.e. since February 1999. The arrears of maintenance shall be deposited by the respondent in the family court or shall pay directly to the appellant, within two months from today. 3. Costs of the appeal be paid by the respondent to the appellant. 4. Decree be drawn accordingly.