JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition, filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Family Court, Agartala has been challenged. 3. The admitted fact is that the petitioner is living separately from her matrimonial home and she was never paid any amount for her sustenance in her parents house where she has been living separately at her parents' home. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance to her. 4. It is not disputed by anyone that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 02.08.2010. According to the petitioner, she was traumatized both physically and mentally as she could not bring the money as demanded by the respondent from her paternal house. The petitioner has also alleged against the respondent of having an illicit relation with another girl and of not providing food and clothes when she lived at her matrimonial home. On 14.09.2010, the day when the petitioner's father passed away she went for funeral ceremony but the respondent thereafter did not take her back to the matrimonial home. According to the petitioner, the monthly income of the respondent is to the extent of Rs.20,000/-per month and his mother is self-reliant being a Government Employee and she is also receiving the family pension on account of her deceased husband. As the petitioner does not have any means she had been maintaining her life in a pitiable situation. Thus, she prayed for maintenance to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-per month from the respondent, her husband. 5. The respondent by filing an objection has confronted all allegations and stated that the petitioner left the matrimonial home voluntarily and without any sufficient cause and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance, as if it had been a defence under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent has also stated that he wanted intervention of the Tripura State Commission for Woman and at their initiative there was a conciliation on 22.03.2011 but for serious resistence from the petitioner, the said conciliation did not generate any positive result. According to the respondent, he is an unemployed person. According to the respondent, he is an unemployed person. It appears from the record that the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura has recorded two witnesses from the petitioner and another two witnesses from the respondent. On the purported appreciation of the records, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura denied to pass any order for maintenance in favour of the petitioner. The interim order of maintenance as was granted was also vacated with effect from 01.06.2013 and as such, the petitioner was not getting any maintenance. Having faced with such situation, she has challenged the said judgment and order dated 22.05.2013 as passed in Misc. 292/11. The respondent has also alleged that the petitioner was having a love-affair. 6. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner and the respondent had no congenial marital life. Even without exploring who was responsible for absence of congeniality, it can be held that the situation was as such that if forced the petitioner live separately and having refused to be maintained by the petitioner. It provides the sufficient ground to this court to exercise the power under Section 125(1) for passing an appropriate order. By the order dated 7.7.2012 delivered in Misc (Int) 395/12 [from Misc. 292/11], the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura directed the respondent to pay sum of Rs.2000/-per month to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2012 which had been vacated by the final order dated 22.05.2013 passed in Misc. 292/11 with effect from 01.06.2013. The petitioner has challenged that order dated 22.05.2013 by this petition. 7. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be defended for constructing the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. without having regard to the object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. From the records, it has transpired that there was no congenial situation in the marital life of the parties and as such, the court ought to have passed an order of maintenance. Denial has emerged to be against the very object for which Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been engrafted in the statute. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has however submitted that now the situation has become absolutely irreparable as their relation has deteriorated to the lowest ebb. 8. Denial has emerged to be against the very object for which Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been engrafted in the statute. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has however submitted that now the situation has become absolutely irreparable as their relation has deteriorated to the lowest ebb. 8. Be that as it may, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained simply for the fact which denotes that there was no marital congeniality in the relation of the petitioner and the respondent and that itself is a substantive ground for granting the maintenance when there is no dispute that the petitioner does not earn any living and the respondent is under obligation to maintain her as she is his legally married wife. In this context, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the maintenance in terms of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. Hence it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/-per month to the petitioner within 10th day of every calendar month with effect from 1.8.2016 and the said sum shall be sent to the following address of the petitioner through the Money Order. The charge that would incur for sending the money in the above manner shall be borne by the respondent : Smt. Chandra Deb (Nandi Majumder), daughter of late Chandan Deb, wife of Shri Prasenjit Nandi Majumder, resident of Bhattapukur, Tahashildar Tilla, Agartala, P.O. A.D. Nagar, P.S. A.D. Nagar, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799003 9. It is made clear that if the sum of maintenance is not paid regularly, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take stern action against the respondent to realise the said sum. Since this court has not directed for payment of any arrear from the period from 01.06.2013 to this date, the respondent shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner in five installments, which shall be every month starting from September 2016, in equal installments. Needless to say that, if there is any failure to pay even the arrear maintenance or part thereof the petitioner may urge for coercive active before the family court. 10. A copy of this order be served to the learned counsel for the parties. Needless to say that, if there is any failure to pay even the arrear maintenance or part thereof the petitioner may urge for coercive active before the family court. 10. A copy of this order be served to the learned counsel for the parties. It is made clear that the petitioner shall serve a copy of the order on the respondent by registered post with A/D for ensuring that the knowledge of the order has been gathered by the respondent for taking appropriate action, if required in future. But if the respondent is still eager to take back the petitioner, the respondent shall be at liberty to have the matter mediated through the well wishers of the family and if he can succeed in taking back the petitioner to the matrimonial home, the order of maintenance will have no force from the day when the petitioner would join her matrimonial home. 11. Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.