JUDGMENT: Heard Shri V.P.Latange, leamed counsel for the applicant and Shri A.S.Shelke, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The applicant is the husband, respondent no. 1 is his wife and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the said couple. 3. Two proceedings were initiated before the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad; (1) Petition No. E- 573 of 2000 by wife along with two minor daughters under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance; and (2) Petition No. A- 126 of 2001 by the husband against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Both these petitions were tried together and the common evidence was recorded in both these proceedings by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The learned Judge of the Family Court on 4.6.2001 passed a common judgment on 4.6.2001. By the said common judgment, the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the proceeding A-126 of 2001, however, allowed the proceeding E-573 of 2000 tiled on behalf of the wife and her two daughters. By allowing the said petition for maintenance, the learned Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/- per month each to the minor daughters. The said maintenance was granted from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 2.9.2000. 4. The present Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the court below granting maintenance in favour of the wife and her two minor daughters. 5. It is to be noted here that, since the husband was dissatisfied with the finding and the verdict which was handed down to him in his proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, approached this court by filing Family Court Appeal No. 13 of 2002 questioning the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissing his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The Division Bench of this court on 10.2.2003 was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the husband. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court in respect of restitution of conjugal rights has attained its finality. The Division Bench of this court on 10.2.2003 was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the husband. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court in respect of restitution of conjugal rights has attained its finality. It is nobody's case that the husband has approached Hon'ble Apex Court questioning the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court. 6. Admittedly, the marriage with Ashwini i.e. respondent no.1 was the second marriage of the applicant Laxman. He was required to perform second marriage since unfortunately he lost his first wife late Ushabai in an accident. From the said wedlock, he is having one son. 7. According to the application, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the marriage with the present applicant, wife started residing with her husband after her marriage on 21.5.1991 at Mauje Nagina Pimpalgaon, Taluka Vaijapur. She was treated nicely for first two years, however, subsequently, the husband/the applicant demanded Rs. One Lac from Ashwini to be brought from her parents in order to purchase one tractor, and since the demand of the husband was remained to be fulfilled, she was subjected to atrocities at the hands of the present applicant. 8. It was the case of the wife before the Judge of the Family Court that the atrocity was to such an extent that it became unbearable for her and in fact she was driven out by the husband from her matrimonial house. In the mean while, prior to she being driven out from her matrimonial house, the demand of Rs. One Lac was fulfilled by the parents of Ashwini. The cause for driving out Ashwini was on account of she being pregnant on second occasion. According to Ashwini, her husband Laxman used to force her to abort, because she was having one son from his first marriage and since Ashwini was not budging to the said pressure she was driven out. 9. According to the learned counsel for the husband, in fact, Ashwini on her own has left her matrimonial house and she is guilty of desertion and thereby husband has lost the company of his wife, and therefore, wife is not entitled for the maintenance. This was the basic pleading submitted in the written statement before the Family Court. 10. 9. According to the learned counsel for the husband, in fact, Ashwini on her own has left her matrimonial house and she is guilty of desertion and thereby husband has lost the company of his wife, and therefore, wife is not entitled for the maintenance. This was the basic pleading submitted in the written statement before the Family Court. 10. Upon evidence, the learned Judge of the Family Court has recorded a specific finding in the proceeding A-126 of 2001 i.e. proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act that the husband has failed to prove that the wife has withdrawn herself from his company without sufficient reason or any cause. 11. Now, this finding recorded by the learned Judge of the court below is affirmed by this court in Family Court Appeal No. 13 of 2002, as pointed out in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/husband is not responsible for making the payment of maintenance to his wife, because she on her own has deserted the matrimonial house, has lost all the grounds, and the said submission needs no consideration, but the rejection. 12. Once it is proved on record that the wife was required to leave the matrimonial house under compulsion and/or in fact she was driven out by the husband from her matrimonial house requiring her to take the shelter of her parental house along with a minor daughter at the time when she was ousted from the matrimonial house and then she delivered another daughter at the house of her parents, the least it was expected from the husband that he shall visit the house of the father of Ashwini in order to take care of his two minor daughters. Nothing is brought on record that the present applicant/husband has taken any steps for bringing the wife and his two minor daughters. 13. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by the present respondent against the applicant on 2.9.2000; whereas the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were initiated by the husband/ applicant only after he received the summons from the Family Court in respect of initiation of the proceedings for maintenance against him by his wife and two daughters. Obviously, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights are after thought and those proceedings are filed only to create a defence in his favour in the maintenance proceedings. 14. All these facts were rightly appreciated by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Further, in so far as the fixation of quantum of maintenance is concerned, the court below has rightly observed that the husband is having sufficient means to provide the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.l,000/ - to the wife and Rs.750/- each to the two daughters. 15. The learned counsel for the applicant was unable to point out anything before this court regarding the fixation of quantum in favour of the wife and the two minor daughters. 16. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment delivered by the learned Judge of the Family Court granting maintenance in favour of the wife and her two minor daughters. 17. The present Revision is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.l,000/-. Rule discharged. Application dismissed.