JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar in MAT Case No.147/12 of 2013 in a proceeding under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, wherein learned Judge, Family Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife (Respondent No.1 herein) and a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to his son (Respondent No.2 herein) towards maintenance, from the date of the application, i.e, from 03.04.2013, within a period of one month. He further directed payment of current maintenance as well as cost and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- 2. The respondent No.1 herein filed a petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act 1956) contending inter alia that the marriage between her and the appellant was solemnized on 03.03.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom. They were blessed with a son on 02.09.2003, namely, Respondent No.2. After the birth of the child, the Respondent No.1 was not treated well by her in-laws. In the year 2010, when the appellant was working at Kolkata, her son became ill and there was necessity of surgical intervention. But, the appellant refused to arrange money for the same. When the Respondent No.1-wife insisted upon arranging money for surgical intervention of the child, most surprisingly, the appellant disowned his responsibility saying that he had no relationship with them. Ultimately, the matter was reported at Industrial Police Station, Balasore on 21.09.2007 and at the intervention of Police, a settlement in writing was arrived. At that point of time, the appellant was based at Delhi and Respondent No.1 with her child (Respondent No.2) were staying at her parental home. The appellant visited Balasore in the year 2008. Knowing the same, the Respondent No.1 along with her child came to her matrimonial home on 29.11.2008 at Balasore, but they were misbehaved and were not allowed to enter into the house of the appellant. When the matter stood thus, the appellant filed MAT No.25 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said case, there was an amicable settlement on 02.12.2009. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 went to Delhi along with the child and stayed there with the appellant. When the matter stood thus, the appellant filed MAT No.25 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said case, there was an amicable settlement on 02.12.2009. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 went to Delhi along with the child and stayed there with the appellant. While staying at Delhi, the father of Respondent No.1 expired on 09.012011 and the respondents along with the appellant had come to attend obsequies of the father of respondent No.1. Subsequently, on 27.05.2012, the respondent No.1 had come to Odisha to see her widowed mother at Turmunga in the district of Keonjhar and returned to Delhi on 25.06.2012. When she reached Delhi along with her son, she found that the lock of the front door of their house was changed for which she could not enter into the house. She along with her son stayed in their neighbour’s house till the appellant returned from his office. At about 9.00 P.M., the appellant returned from office, but did not allow the respondents to enter into the house. During the relevant period, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Prusty, brother of respondent No. 1 was staying at Delhi. Finding no other alternative, respondent No.1 called her brother. The appellant did not appreciate presence of the brother of respondent No.1. He, instead of allowing her to enter into the house, threw the wearing apparels and other articles of respondent No.1 outside and closed the door on the face of the respondent No.1. Finding no alternative, respondent No.1 returned to her parental home at Turumunga and has been staying there since 20.06.2011. She has no source of income of her own. They (she and her son) have become a burden on her widowed mother. The appellant is a Hardware Engineer and draws salary of more than Rs.60,000/- per month. In addition to the same, he earns a good amount from the vast landed property at his village Angargadia, Balasore. Thus, she filed the petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Act for maintenance. 3. The appellant entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.2 was born out of their wedlock. But he denied other allegations made in the petition for maintenance. Thus, she filed the petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Act for maintenance. 3. The appellant entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.2 was born out of their wedlock. But he denied other allegations made in the petition for maintenance. The appellant, in his written statement, contended that he was a brilliant scholar having good academic career in Science faculty. His wife-respondent No.1 is an adamant and arrogant lady of a rich family of Keonjhar. Thus, she was unable to adjust in her matrimonial home. However, the difference between the couple was reconciled by intervention of gentlemen on 21.09.2007. Accordingly, she went to her parental home for two months for a change of mind. Instead of returning to matrimonial home, she threatened the family members of the appellant to file false criminal case against them and send them to jail. Finding no other alternative, the appellant filed Matrimonial Case No.25 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for restitution of conjugal right, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore and renumbered as C.P., No.93 of 2010. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.1 lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant in Turumunga P.S., which was registered as P.S. Case No.85 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. (CT) Case No.848 of 2013, which is now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. He further contended that his wife-respondent No.1 had voluntarily deserted him (appellant) and left the matrimonial home without any just cause. Therefore, the petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, 1956 would not be maintainable. 4. Learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar, taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties and materials available on record, allowed the petition and directed payment of maintenance to respondent No.1 and her child, which is impugned herein. It would not be out of place to mention here that taking into consideration the nature of dispute, this Court vide order No.11 dated 12.05.2017 appointed Mr. V. Narsingh, learned Advocate of this Court as a Mediator in this case. The mediation was taken up on various dates and to work out the possibility of re-union. At the persuasion of the Mediator, both the parties had also agreed to visit Puri together. V. Narsingh, learned Advocate of this Court as a Mediator in this case. The mediation was taken up on various dates and to work out the possibility of re-union. At the persuasion of the Mediator, both the parties had also agreed to visit Puri together. However, in spite of all sincere efforts and persuasions of learned Mediator, unfortunately the mediation failed and failure report was submitted on 29.08.2017. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order is an outcome of non-consideration of material facts on record. Learned Judge, Family Court did not at all take into consideration the pleadings of respondent No.1 with regard to income of the appellant. Learned Judge, Family Court proceeded on a misconception that the appellant and his family members were demanding cash and dowry from respondent No.1’s family. He did not at all take into consideration that respondent No.1 had abandoned her matrimonial home without any just cause. Thus, she would not be entitled to any maintenance at all. In the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, both the parties entered into an amicable settlement to live together, but the respondent No.1 although joined the company of the appellant for some time at New Delhi, did not show any interest to lead a conjugal life. Learned Judge, Family Court also did not take into consideration that the respondent No.1 owns a Nursing Home and a medicine store at her parental home and has sufficient means to maintain herself. She is leading a luxurious life and maintains a status higher than the appellant. The respondent No.2 has been forced to live with respondent No.1 and he is being deprived of love and affection of his father. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 6. Learned Counsel for the wife-respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record to come to a conclusion that Respondent No.-1 wife is leading a luxurious life and owns a Nursing Home as well as a medicine store. She is leading a miserable life depending upon her widowed mother for her sustenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, while answering Issue Nos. She is leading a miserable life depending upon her widowed mother for her sustenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, while answering Issue Nos. 5 and 6, discussed in detail the evidence adduced by the witnesses of respective parties and came to a categorical conclusion that the respondents were driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and the appellant is guilty of desertion and wilful negligence. He has abandoned not only his wife but also his son without any reasonable cause and treated both of them with cruelty. Hence, while answering Issue No.7, learned Judge, Family Court held that they are entitled to maintenance as prayed for. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant (husband) is a Hardware Engineer and is earning more than Rs.60,000/- per month. In addition to his income from service, the appellant has vast landed properties at Angargadia in the district of Balasore. Hence, the maintenance awarded by learned Judge, Family Court needs no interference as the same is reasonable. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Although, the appellant-husband in his pleadings, has taken a plea that his wife had wilfully deserted him without any reasonable cause, he could not produce any materials in support of the same except his oral testimony. On the other hand, Respondent No.1-wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and has filed copy of the FIR. The mother and brother of Respondent No.1 have been examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively, who in their evidence, categorically deposed that respondent No.1 was ill-treated by the appellant (her husband) for which father-in-law of the appellant had gone to the house of the appellant to settle the matter. In presence of gentleman of the locality, the appellant had abused his father-in-law and threatened him to kill for which the FIR was lodged at the Industrial Police Station at Balasore on 21.09.2007. The respondent No.1, who has been examined as P.W.1, also vividly narrated cruelty and torture meted out to her in her evidence, which has not been shaken at all in the cross-examination. Thus, we find no illegality in the finding arrived at by learned Judge, Family Court, while answering Issue Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the cruelty and abandonment of Respondent No.1 by the appellant. The appellant has not adduced any evidence with regard to his income. Thus, we find no illegality in the finding arrived at by learned Judge, Family Court, while answering Issue Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the cruelty and abandonment of Respondent No.1 by the appellant. The appellant has not adduced any evidence with regard to his income. P.W. 1 in her evidence, has categorically stated that her husband being a Hardware Engineer earns Rs.60,000/- per month. The appellant although denied the said statement of P.W.1, but he does not come out with any specific averment or evidence with regard to his earning. The evidence on record further reveals that the appellant has landed property in his name. The wife-respondent No.1 has filed a copy of the ROR in respect of Khata No.263 of Mouza Angargadia (Ext.3) which stands recorded in the name of the appellant and his brother. Thus, he has 50% share in the said plot of land. This fact has been suppressed by the appellant. The appellant does not also deny the fact that his family has landed property in which he has a share. He only disputes the testimony of P.W.1 stating that the said landed property stands recorded in the name of his father. Further, the appellant has filed MAT Case No.25 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore, which has now been transferred to learned Judge, Family Court and has been renumbered as C.P. No.56/25 of 2010.At paragraph 5 of the plaint of that petition, it is averred that he is a brilliant scholar of good academic record in Science Faculty. He has also stated that he is serving in New Delhi as an IT Engineer. The appellant has also filed Guardian Petition No.14 of 2014 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, which has been transferred to Keonjhar and renumbered as Guardian Petition no.16/14 of 2015-2014 for custody of the child. At paragraph 7 of the said petition, the appellant has categorically stated that after death of father of Respondent No.1, the financial status of his wife is far below than him (appellant). At paragraph 7 of the said petition, the appellant has categorically stated that after death of father of Respondent No.1, the financial status of his wife is far below than him (appellant). From the evidence available on record, it appears that the appellant is not fair to the Court in not disclosing his actual income both from service as well as landed properties .Although, learned Counsel for the appellant took a stand that the respondent No.1 owns a Nursing Home and has a medicine shop at Keonjhar, but the same is without any basis, in absence of any material in support of the same. Thus, the Family Court rightly taking into consideration the testimony of Respondent No.1-wife with regard to the income of the appellant has awarded the maintenance. 8. After a threadbare discussion of evidence on record, learned Judge, Family Court has come to a conclusion that both the respondents are entitled to maintenance. Taking into consideration the status of the appellant and his earning capacity, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar fixing quantum of maintenance both for the respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the Matrimonial Appeal stands dismissed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. I . MAHANTY, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.