JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2012 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura in case No. Cr.Misc/FC/ UDP/62/2011, whereunder the learned Judge, Family Court refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that she voluntarily left her husband’s house without any cogent reason. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Choudhury for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-wife is a Muslim lady and it is not disputed that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that they lived and cohabited as husband and wife for about a year peacefully and a female child was born out of their wedlock and the female child is with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was tortured on demand of a cash money to be brought from her parents’ house and that she was driven out of the matrimonial home. According to the respondent, the parents of the petitioner insisted the respondent to leave his parental house and to live in the house of petitioner’s parents as a ‘gharjamai’(a husband, who lives in the house of the parents-in-law) and the respondent refused the proposal of his parents-in-law and therefore the father of the petitioner took her away from the house of the respondent and thereafter the respondent tried his level best to take back the petitioner but the petitioner refused to return to the matrimonial home. The learned Judge, Family Court appreciated the evidence and observed that even when he asked the petitioner she refused to live with the respondent. 4. The trial Court, as it appears did not believe the petitioner’s case that she was tortured and that she was driven out from the matrimonial home, on the contrary, put reliance on the facts stated by the respondent-opposite party that the opposite party was willing to live with the petitioner and that the petitioner voluntarily left the house of the opposite party/ respondent. 5. 5. Sub-section (4) of Section 125 prescribes that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under Section 125 if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 6. There is no allegation that the petitioner is living in adulteration or that she is living separately by mutual consent. It is a fact that she is living separately from the association of her husband at her parental home. According to the petitioner, she was driven out from the husband’s house. According to the respondent, she voluntarily left her husband’s house with her father since the respondent-OP refused to be a ‘gharjamai’. If we balance both the facts it would appear that in ordinary course a woman would like to live with her husband in the husband’s house while she has already got a baby because of their matrimonial relation. It is quite rare that a wife having no reason at all or that on the ground of making the husband as ‘gharjamai’ leaves the house of the husband. The trial Court perhaps put excessive emphasis on the fact narrated by the respondent-OP and refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner. I think it is a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed maintenance. 7. Taking into consideration the social standing of both side and the profession as well as income, I think the respondent-OP should be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner. Accordingly the revisional application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court refusing maintenance to the petitioner is interfered and set aside to that extent. The respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. the month of September, 2016, payable in October, 2016 and onwards until otherwise directed by a competent authority. 8. The revisional application accordingly stands disposed of.