JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Challenging the Order dated 25.04.2014 delivered in Misc. No. 290 of 2013 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act has been preferred. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are legally-wed husband and wife. For some months, they lived and led their conjugal life peacefully but according to the respondent, the petitioner started torturing her both mentally and physically for bringing more golden ornaments and money from her parents. Failing to bear such trauma in the matrimonial home, the respondent left and started living with her parents but the petitioner did not care to provide any maintenance. Having refused thus, she had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura. 4. It appears from the records that the petitioner filed the written objection on 10.04.2014 and stated that the allegations, as made against him were all fabricated since she was unhappy as she wanted to live a carefree life, she left the matrimonial home. The petitioner tried several times to restitute the conjugal life and all his attempts were foiled by the respondent herein. Finally the petitioner filed one petition for restitution of the conjugal life in the Family Court being T.S. (RCR) No. 234 of 2013. However, subsequently as stated by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said petition for restitution of the conjugal life was withdrawn by the petitioner. 5. In the said petition, the petitioner has admitted that against him prosecution for committing cruelty punishable under Section 498(A) had commenced from the complaint of the respondent being Agartala Women PS case no. 13 of 2013. The petitioner had to take pre-arrest bail from the Court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Even the respondent filed a complaint to the Protection Officer, appointed under the Prevention of the Women from Domestic Violence Act for shelter house and for her security. A complaint was subsequently registered as case no. CR No. 129 of 2013 which at the time of filing the said written statement was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 4), Agartala, West Tripura. A complaint was subsequently registered as case no. CR No. 129 of 2013 which at the time of filing the said written statement was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 4), Agartala, West Tripura. The petitioner had approached this Court for quashing the proceeding under Section 498(A)/34 of the IPC by filing the Criminal Petition no. 55 of 2013. The said petition was pending at the time of filing of this petition. It is reported by Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the said petition has been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner had also alleged in the said written objection that the respondent, the petitioner in the proceeding instituted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was maintaining an illicit relation with one person (name withheld for protecting his identity as that person is not in the proceeding as the party). It has also been stated that the respondent approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate by filing an application in the said proceeding for custody of the bridal gifts and according to the petitioner herein, that indicates that the respondent has no intention to continue the marital relation with him. 6. The Family Court has recorded the statements and this Court has perused those statements. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fabricated version of torture, the statement that the respondent does not have any income is entirely false inasmuch as she works in the Airtel Retail shop and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. Apart that she earns additional amount by giving tuition. Thus, the ‘statement’ that she does not have any income to maintain herself cannot provide the basis for granting the maintenance. 7. On the other side, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that it will be evident on scrutiny of the testimonies that even the petitioner herein, did not confront to the statement of the respondent herein (PW-1) that she does not have any income to maintain herself. 8. For purpose of appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel, this court has scrutinized the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as well as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. 9. 8. For purpose of appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel, this court has scrutinized the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as well as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. 9. DW-1 has only stated in his examination-in-chief that the respondent works in a Airtel shop but he even did not state that she had been earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from that shop. No documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner or by the respondent herein and as such this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of maintenance, as passed by the Family Court. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed, as there is no proof that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. Send down the records. 11. Stay order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. The petitioner shall pay the maintenance allowance in terms of the impugned order of the Family Court and if arrear is there for the order of the stay, that shall be paid within 3(three) months from today else the respondent shall be at liberty to take coercive action, as provided under law, for realising of the said arrear amount.