JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. J. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.07.2016 delivered in Case No. Miscellaneous 232 of 2015 by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby the prayer for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the statement that the petitioner has incorporated in her petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has not been corroborated by her statement made on oath in the proceeding. In para8 of the said judgment, the Family Court has observed as under: “From the aforementioned excerpts of the depositions of the witnesses, it becomes clear that admittedly the petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. While going through the petition praying for maintenance filed by the petitioner, I found that admittedly the petitioner used to be tortured both physically and mentally by the opposite party over the demand of money. Even it is alleged that the opposite party on 18122014, poured kerosene oil on her body and the sister of the opposite party lit a match stick and threw on her. Her wearing apparel was burning at that time and she was saved by her motherinlaw. It is specifically stated in the petition that she was treated by one doctor namely Dipak Chakraborty. But surprisingly when deposing before the court she told a separate story and did not bring any story of demand of money made by the opposite party not to speak of illicit relation of her husband. She simply stated that she was being tortured by the opposite party as the opposite party disliked her and married her under the pressure of his father. The contradiction between the facts mentioned in the petition praying for maintenance and the deposition of PW-1 is sufficient to doubt the case of the petitioner. Whereas I found no ground to disbelieve the witnesses of the opposite party specially OPW-3 whose house is located near the house of OPW-1 and who tried to convince PW-1 to lead conjugal life peacefully. Though OPW-3 is a relative of OPW-1, yet the veracity of this witness could not be shaken by the petitioner. Whereas I found no ground to disbelieve the witnesses of the opposite party specially OPW-3 whose house is located near the house of OPW-1 and who tried to convince PW-1 to lead conjugal life peacefully. Though OPW-3 is a relative of OPW-1, yet the veracity of this witness could not be shaken by the petitioner. Over and above, OPW-1, categorically stated that he is ready to live with his wife.” [Emphasis supplied] 3. This court has been completely taken aback by the kind of approach the Family Court has adopted when admittedly the petitioner is staying away from the matrimonial home and she is unable to maintain herself inasmuch as she does not have any means of living. Simply the husband has stated that he is ready to live with the wife does not give any leverage to the court to deny the wife the benefit of the provisions of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. by grant of maintenance allowance. The purpose of Section 125 is well entrenched that the persons who are coming within the domain of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. shall not suffer any vagrancy. This is a case where the husband has stated that he is ready to live with the wife, but the wife has stated that there is no congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home. Though she had definitely omitted to make the statements consistent fully with the averments made in the petition. These incongruous statements, to some extent, even if given any credence, on the face of them, would not debase the claim of the petitioner keeping the object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the focus. 4. Having observed thus, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner per month with effect from 01.02.2017 and the said sum shall be paid within 8th day of every English calendar month. 5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out to this court that the respondent was paying the interim maintenance allowance by remitting the same to the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, the maintenance allowance as granted can be remitted by the respondent in the bank account of the petitioner. 6. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.