JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 questioning the judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in Crl. Misc.FC/UDP/84/2016. 3. The petitioners had filed one petition for having the maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C from the respondent on the premise that the respondent refused to pay such maintenance allowance despite having sufficient means. After recording the evidence, the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District has directed, by the impugned order, that the respondent shall pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.750/- per month for the minor child only with effect from 14.02.2017. The petitioner No.1 was not given any maintenance on observing that she had refused to reside with the respondent and disclosed her such intention in the course of the Panchayat meeting. It has been further observed that the petitioner No.1 had left her matrimonial home on her volition and without any reasonable cause and as such she is not entitled to the maintenance as prayed for. 4. Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the said finding emanates from perverse appreciation of evidence. He has quite emphatically stated that the petitioner No.1 was physically tortured on demand of more dowry in the matrimonial home. The relevant part from her deposition [PW-1] is extracted hereunder: “I went to my matrimonial home and after about 4 months I became pregnant. After marriage I lived happily for about 2 months but thereafter the O.P. started torture upon me on the ground that he would have got better person to marry and would have gain more dowry at the time of marriage. The O.P. used to come home in drunken condition and used to torture me. The O.P. said that he would have got more money if he married somewhere else. Ultimately when I was 1 month pregnant the O.P. ousted me from the matrimonial home and I was compelled to take shelter in my parental home. After the birth of my son the O.P. went to see me and the child but returned back leaving us in my parental home. Ultimately when I was 1 month pregnant the O.P. ousted me from the matrimonial home and I was compelled to take shelter in my parental home. After the birth of my son the O.P. went to see me and the child but returned back leaving us in my parental home. Thereafter the O.P. never returned though I contacted him and even meetings were held but the O.P. did not turn up. The O.P. also does not provide any maintenance for me and my child.” 5. PW-1 has also stated that the OP [the respondent herein] had an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Those statements were however sought to be confronted in the course of the cross-examination. 6. PW-2, Kabir Hossain, as Mr. Acharji, learned counsel has pointed out, has also supported her case. PW-2, however, is the brother of the petitioner No.1. 7. Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that PW-3 is an independent witness from the village where the petitioner No.1 stays at present. PW-3, Muktul Hossain has stated that after their marriage, there surfaced disputes. Those disputes could not be settled. He has not shed any light what disputes were all about. 8. It appears from the records that the respondent has adduced three witnesses. In his deposition as OPW-1, the respondent, has stated that the petitioner No.1 started complaining that she would not be able to stay with his sisters. Further, she demanded that a piece of land should be transferred to her. The petitioner No.1 used to beat her daughter from the first wife. The respondent bore all in expectation of change in the conduct of the petitioner No.1. But he [OPW-1] has admitted that ‘In such situation I was compelled to inform the marriage broker who informed the petitioner’s mother and they came and took her away. After that meetings were held in Panchayet but they could not settle the dispute.’ OPW-1, however has stated in the inquiry that the petitioner refused to come back when he went to take her back. 9. OPW-2, Narayan Chakraborty has stated that in the Panchayet meeting the petitioner No.1 had stated that he would not reside with the respondent. 10. OPW-3, Maran Das could not clearly state that what the nature of disputes between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was. 9. OPW-2, Narayan Chakraborty has stated that in the Panchayet meeting the petitioner No.1 had stated that he would not reside with the respondent. 10. OPW-3, Maran Das could not clearly state that what the nature of disputes between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was. He has stated that he heard that the petitioner No.1 wanted a land in her name from the respondent. He has also stated that he heard that the petitioner left the matrimonial home voluntarily. 11. On appreciation, the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District had passed the said finding. 12. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has in order to defend the judgment submitted that since the petitioner No.1 had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and without sufficient cause she is disentitled to get the maintenance in terms of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that the respondent is earning Rs.3,000/- per month and that has been very rightly accepted by the Judge, Family Court. As such, even no enhancement be directed in respect of the petitioner No.2 who is getting the maintenance allowance at Rs.750/- per month from the respondent. 13. At this juncture, Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has clearly submitted that for last 3(three) months the said maintenance allowance was not being paid to the petitioner No.2 by the respondent. 14. Having perused the evidence afresh, this court is of the view that the findings as returned by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the respondent as OPW-1 has categorically stated that he was compelled to call the members of the family of the petitioner No.1 and asked them to take back the petitioner from the matrimonial home, there should not have been any finding that the petitioner No.1 had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Though he has stated later on that he went to bring her back or that the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily. Even if her allegation regarding physical torture is not totally believed by this court but in view of brooding presence of the constitutional empathy this court is under duty to make a balance between the vagrancy and the rigours of the provisions of law under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, right now no order of enhancement would be made in favour of the petitioner No.2. 15. The respondent has in his written objection clearly admitted that his monthly income is around Rs.7000/- per month. From the record produced by the petitioners this court finds that the respondent is the owner of some land which is recorded under Khatian No.1623 of Mouja Chandigarh, Sub-division Sonamura. Further, his family has landed properties which are recorded in the name of Nabalak Miah, the father of the petitioner. As such, it can safely be presumed that the other family members are not dependent on the income of the respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as the maintenance allowance to the petitioner No.1 within 10th day of every English calendar month. The said amount shall be remitted by money order to the given address of the petitioner No.1. However, this order will be effective from 01.09.2017. So far the arrear maintenance of the petitioner No.2 is concerned that has to be paid by the respondent within 25.09.2017 of this month by money order to the petitioner No.1. The maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.2750/- shall thus be paid to the petitioner No.1 within the time as stipulated. The money order commission shall be borne by the respondent. 16. With this observation and direction, this petition stands partly allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.