JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit, for, rendition of a decree, for grant of maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem against defendant No.1/appellant herein, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit as indigent person for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month against defendant No.1 with the allegations that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, and, a son namely Ram Kishan has been born to the plaintiff out of this wedlock. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 earlier resided at village Dhela and defendant No. got estranged with the plaintiff as he wanted transfer some land in his favour on the part of grand mother of the plaintiff to which she did not agree. Thereafter, the plaintiff started residing with her brother alongwith her son and she spent on the eduction of her son Ram Krishan. Shri Ram Krishan was settled in village Koli Majra. On the intervention of Ram Rakha a close relation of the parties in the year 1988, he constructed a residential house there. Thereafter, the defendants started harassing Shri Ram Krishan on one pretext or the other to compel him to leave his residential house and property which was ancestral. The plaintiff has been visiting the residential house of defendant No.1 and her son off and on and has been requesting defendant No.1 to secure conjugal home to maintain her as his wife. Defendant No.1 has been playing in the hands of defendants No.2 and 3 and is adamant and threatened to kill her. Defendant No.1 willfully neglected and abandoned the plaintiff without reasonable cause and efforts of the plaintiff and her relatives for the last more than 30 years to reconcile the matter have gone futile. The plaintiff has no source of income. Defendant No.1 has sufficient income from the land measuring 14 bighas 14 biswas i.e. (a) land measuring 9 bighas 12 3/5 bighas being 1/5th share of land measuring 48 bighas, 3 biswas, comprised in khewat No.43, Khatauni No. 45, Khasra Nos. The plaintiff has no source of income. Defendant No.1 has sufficient income from the land measuring 14 bighas 14 biswas i.e. (a) land measuring 9 bighas 12 3/5 bighas being 1/5th share of land measuring 48 bighas, 3 biswas, comprised in khewat No.43, Khatauni No. 45, Khasra Nos. 68(12-17) bighas, 89 (12-10) bighas, 69 (0-4) B, 132 (10-14) B, 265/142 (0- 9) B, 268(0-11) B, 270/150(0-10) B, 148 (1-15)B, 149 (1- 8) B, 154 (4-13) B & 153 (2-11)B, (b) land measuring 12 biswas being 1/5 th share of land measuring 3 bighas comprised in Kh/Kh NO. 40/41, bearing Khasra No. 285 (3-0) B and (c) land measuring 4 bighas 9 1/3 biswas being 1/3rd share of land measuring 13 bighas 8 biswas comprised in Kh/kh NO.42/43 bearing Khasra Nos. 390/229 (8-1) B & 259 (5-7) B, situate in the area of village Dasomajra, Prgana, Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Defendant No.1 was threatening to alienate the suit land. So, the plaintiff has filed the suit for grant of maintenance at the rate of 500/- per month by creating charge on the suit land along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land. 3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he averred that Shri Ram Kishan was not the son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff on the first night of marriage did not allow sexual access to him and no sexual relations ever took place inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the marriage was never consummated. After the marriage, the plaintiff always remained in village Dhela with her parents. Defendant No.1 did not reside with her and he was having land in village Koli Majra and there was o necessity for him to have eyes on the land of the grandmother of the plaintiff. Shri Ram Kishan was never born from the loins of defendant No.1 and it was incumbent on the parents of the plaintiff to give him education. Shri Ram Kishan was not settled in Village Koli Majra and he was working as Clerk in Jogindera Central Co-op Bank Nalagarh and drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month and his wife was serving in Education Department and she was also drawing Rs.6000/- per month. They are living with the plaintiff. Shri Ram Kishan was not settled in Village Koli Majra and he was working as Clerk in Jogindera Central Co-op Bank Nalagarh and drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month and his wife was serving in Education Department and she was also drawing Rs.6000/- per month. They are living with the plaintiff. Shri Ram Kishan had also filed suit against defendant No.1 for getting the land on the grounds that the same was ancestral. Shri Ram Kishan and Ram Gopal got instituted the suit from the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 and 3 brothers of defendant No.1 were serving him. The plaintiff is living in village Dhela with her parents for the last 30 years on account of her sweet will. She did not have dispute with defendant No.1 Defendant No.1 was leading life like a bachelor and unmarried man. The price of the land around Baddi Industrial area had shot up and the plaintiff had dragged him to the litigation in order to obtain land from him. The plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance and the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. 4. The plaintiff filed replication, to, the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance from the defendant and if so what amount? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on her act and conduct and acquiescences ?OPP. 4. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 12.8.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the appellant can be said to be the guilty of treating the respondent No.1 with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind and that it will be harmful or injurious for her to live with the appellant? 2. Whether the son and the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff are primarily responsible for her maintenance in terms of the provisions of the H.P. Old Parents Maintenance Act? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The plaintiff, is, the wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiff's suit, for maintenance, cast under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption, and, Maintenance Act, 1956, would beget success, only upon, the hereinafter extracted apt provisions borne in Section 18 thereof, visibly begetting satiation:- “18 Maintenance of wife.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance- (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or wilfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy; (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; (g) if there is any other cause justifying living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.” Even though, therein a peremptory obligation, is, cast upon a husband, to maintain his legally wedded wife, and, also the statutory liability, of, a husband to maintain his legally wedded wife, during, the latter's life time, obviously also does not enjoin any wrangle therewith. However, the staking(s), of, apt entitlement, of, the aforesaid provisions, would ensue vis-a-vis the plaintiff, hence only, upon evidence existing on record, in display, of her husband willfully deserting her, or abandoning her without any reasonable cause, and, without her consent or against her wish or his willfully neglecting her, besides his being proven to be perpetrating cruelty, upon his legally wedded wife, of such severity, whereupon, an apprehension is aroused in her mind, that, it will be harmful or injurious, for her, to live with her husband. However, evidence in respect of the aforesaid trite statutory parameters, rather remained unadduced. Consequently, with the aforesaid statutory parameters hence remaining grossly unproven, hence, it stood aptly concluded, by the learned trial Court, qua the plaintiff's suit rather warranting dismissal. Further strength, to, the aforesaid conclusion, is garnered, by the factum of the plaintiff, since 1960 till hers instituting the suit, remaining apart, from, the matrimonial company of her husband, (i) thereupon, with the belated institution of the extant suit by the plaintiff, since hers departing, from, the matrimonial company of her husband, in the year 1960, (ii)whereas, upon hers thereat, or hers in prompt sequel thereof, rather instituting the apposite suit, with, averments in consonance, with, the apt statutory parameters aforestated, besides upon hers making testification(s), in consonance therewith, may, rather have enabled her, to beget success. Contrarily, with hers, hence, belatedly instituting the suit, since, hers departing from the matrimonial company, of her husband, in the year 1960, (iii) per se, thereupon, it is manifest, of hers, being estopped, to, even plead of her husband, defendant No.1, during, the period of her stay in his matrimonial company, hence maltreating or illtreating her with cruelty, of such a nature, whereupon hence, hers staying with defendant No.1, stood rendered harmful and injurious, (iv) and, of, defendant No.1 being guilty of deserting her or his abandoning her, without, reasonable cause, and, without her consent or against her wish or his willfully neglecting her. Even the latter inference, gathers strength, given no evidence, in satiation thereof being adduced, comprised in the defendant rather evidently contracting an invalid second marriage, despite subsistence, of his, valid marriage with the plaintiff, (v) in sequel whereto, it may be inferable, of his deserting, the plaintiff or his abandoning her, without any reasonable cause, and, without her consent or against her wish or his willfully neglecting her, (vi) rather with the plaintiff, since, the year 1960 alienating herself, from, the matrimonial company, of defendant No.1, her husband, is a palpable display, of hers, rather without the consent and against, the wish of her husband, rather separating herself from his matrimonial company, and, also hers hence volitionally choosing to depart, from, the matrimonial company of her husband, rendering her hence disabled to claim maintenance, from, the defendant/appellant herein. 9. At the time of institution of the suit, defendant No.1 was aged 70 years, and, though, as revealed by jamabandis borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex.P-2, he along with his brothers, is, shown as co-owner in the suit land. However, though, the learned trial Court, given the age of defendant No.1, had concluded of his being disabled, to cultivate the joint land, and, also it revered, his testification, of his brothers on his behalf cultivating, his share ,in the undivided property. Contrarily, the learned first Appellate Court, ignored the effects, of, the factum of the age, of defendant No.1, and, it concluded that he may, dehors, his age, limiting his capacity, to personally cultivate his share in the undivided shareholdings, yet he given his being enabled, to cultivate it through deployment, of, labourers, thereupon, it computed, the estimated income derived by him, from, the undivided shareholdings, being comprised in a sum, of Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per month. The aforesaid estimation, dehors any tangible evidence existing on record, has hence begotten the sequel, of, the learned first appellate Court, ignoring, the effects, of, the factum of the appellant herein/defendant No.1, being evidently dependent upon his brother, (i) thereupon, unless evidence stood adduced qua the brothers of defendant No.1, after, receiving the price(s), for the crops reared, on the joint suit land, theirs preserving some part thereof, vis-a-vis defendant No.1, (ii) thereupon, alone it could be concluded, of, quantification of maintenance per mensem made by the learned first appellate, rather being meritworthy. However, with the aforesaid evidence being amiss, thereupon, it was insagacious, for, the learned first Appellate Court, to ignore all the effects, of, the age of defendant No.1 also hence his being disabled, to personally cultivate the suit land, besides of his hence being dependent upon his brothers. 10. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court, had on anvil, of, evidence available on record, in display of the plaintiff, staying with her son, who is evidently employed in a bank, hence, rears a handsome salary, from his employment, besides, also with the dependence, of, defendant No.1, upon, his brother(s), and, of his deriving no income, from, the undivided shareholdings, jointly held by him, with them, rather aptly concluded, of, with the son of the plaintiff, being also enjoined, to maintain his aged mother, hence aptly dismissed the plaintiff's suit, whereas, the learned first Appellate Court has, for fallacious reasons, rather inaptly decreed the plaintiff's suit. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent/plaintiff. 12. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 63-NL/13 of 2000 is set aside, whereas, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court in C.S. No. 8/1 of 97/99 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.