JUDGMENT : T.V. Anilkumar, J. Appellant in this appeal is the respondent in O.P.1994/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The sole respondent in this appeal, who is the wife of the appellant, filed the O.P. before the Family Court seeking to recover past and future maintenance, from the date of her desertion. The lower court decreed the original petition awarding to her the arrears of past maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of desertion, till the date of institution of original O.P. She was also awarded future maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for the subsequent period. 2. There was also a connected case, O.P. 124/2014, filed by the respondent herein seeking to recover her gold ornaments and patrimony alleged to have been entrusted with parents of the appellant. After joint trial of both the O.Ps by the impugned common judgment dated 15.5.2018, the Family Court decreed the claim of respondent for maintenance and dismissed her claim for recovery of gold and patrimony. Against the dismissal of O.P.124/2014, she has not chosen to file any appeal, but only allowed it to become final. The appellant, being aggrieved by the decree awarding maintenance, has filed this appeal. 3. Though notice to respondent was served in this appeal, she did not appeared and contested the proceeding. 4. Parties are Hindus and were married on 27.5.2013. They have no issues born out of the wedlock. They lived in the matrimonial house together only for a few weeks. The respondent left the matrimonial home on 29.6.2013. These facts are undisputed in the pleadings as well as in the evidence adduced by parties. 5. Respondent admits of having left the company of the appellant on 29.6.2013. According to her, it was not deliberate, but her life with him was miserable. She could not have reasonably led a normal matrimonial life with the appellant at all. Allegations made by her are that, he took away 20 sovereigns of her gold ornaments and misappropriated the patrimony amount of Rs.70,000/-, in collusion with his parents. The amounts misappropriated were utilised for purchasing an Omni Van in his name. On the very first day of the marriage itself, he treated her with cruelty and had forced sex with her, after keeping her both limbs tied up. She was manhandled also. The amounts misappropriated were utilised for purchasing an Omni Van in his name. On the very first day of the marriage itself, he treated her with cruelty and had forced sex with her, after keeping her both limbs tied up. She was manhandled also. After she consequently left for her home, he married another woman against law and allowed her to stay in his house. All these acts of the appellant dissuaded her from joining his company, after she was searched and produced before the learned Magistrate Chavakkad on 6.7.2013. 6. These allegations were, however denied by the appellant in his objection filed in answer to the Original Petition. He said that she did not have any love or affection for him and did not even permit him to touch her body. She always loved to make calls with her friends over phone and resisted his company for no fault of his. Her departure on 19.6.2013 from his house was voluntary and with a view to abandon the matrimonial relationship. Since she failed to discharge the obligations of a life partner, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance under law, is the contention. 7. According to respondent, appellant is a Tipper Lorry Driver, which he admits in his pleadings also. She alleges that he is getting a monthly income of Rs.44,000/- from different sources. He has given on rent an Autorikshaw and the Omni Van purchased in his name and is collecting good monthly returns from these sources. These two sources were denied by the appellant in his objections and his admitted source of livelihood is a Tipper Lorry in which he is employed as a Driver. 8. The lower court examined the respondent as PW1 and received Exts.A1 to A5 in evidence. Her maternal uncle was examined as PW2. In order to prove Ext.X1 series gold loan ledger, with which we are unconcerned with this appeal, PW3, the Secretary of Co-operative Society was examined. Appellant was examined as RW1 and he proved Exts.B1 & B2. Among these documents, what is most relevant in this appeal is Ext.A3 alone, which is the certified copy of statement of respondent given by her before the JFCM, Chavakkad, where she was produced by police on 6.7.2013. The finding of the lower court in O.P.124/2014 is that she failed to prove not only entrustment of gold and cash but misappropriation also. The finding of the lower court in O.P.124/2014 is that she failed to prove not only entrustment of gold and cash but misappropriation also. This alleged conduct cannot however be imputed to the appellant as a ground of cruelty for claiming maintenance in O.P.1994/2015 since finding against the respondent in that respect has become final. 9. The lower court found that the appellant has sufficient means to maintain the respondent out of the income he gets as the Driver of Tipper Lorry and the respondent has no source of means. It accepted the respondent's testimony, when confronted with Ext.A3 statement that, she never made an admission that she joined any hospital as a staff. The lower court after discussing the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and RW1 finally found that the respondent was entitled to a decree for maintenance from the appellant both past and future. 10. The three points that arise for consideration in this appeal are the following: (1) Whether respondent's conduct of leaving the matrimonial home disentitles her to seek separate maintenance from the appellant ? (2) Whether the appellant has means to maintain the respondent ? (3) Whether quantum of maintenance fixed as per the impugned judgment is reasonable ? 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the lower court cannot be upheld in as much as it did not enter any definite finding as to how the respondent was justified in claiming separate maintenance without discharging the matrimonial duties of a wife under law. He also argued that respondent being a staff in a hospital as proved by her own admission in Ext.A3 statement, she is not entitled to exorbitant amount of maintenance as fixed by the trial court much less any amount at all towards maintenance. 12. Under Section 18 (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (for short the Act) a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance under certain circumstances enumerated in the section. Two of them which the respondent relies on in her case are circumstances when the husband has any other wife living with him and he has treated the claimant wife with cruelty. Two of them which the respondent relies on in her case are circumstances when the husband has any other wife living with him and he has treated the claimant wife with cruelty. Under Section 18 (3) of the Act Hindu wife would be dis-entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a wife by conversion to any other religion. The appellant has no case that she is either unchaste or ceased to be a Hindu by conversion from any religion. Only allegation against her by appellant is that she made 360 calls with a person over land phone. This allegation against her was not proved by any evidence even after it was denied her as false. She as PW1 was frank enough to admit in her cross examination that a few calls she made was with one Sumith. But this evidence is not enough to castigate her as unchaste especially in the absence of precise pleading alleging her as unchaste. 13. The sole question that survives in this appeal is whether her claim for separate maintenance is justified by circumstances enumerated under Section 18 (2) of the Act. Among the two clauses (b) and (d) in Section 18 (2) of the Act, ground in clause (b) will certainly come to her aid. Her allegation matching clause (b) that during the subsistence of the marriage, the appellant married another woman and living with two issues born out of that relationship was not proved by any convincing evidence. The details of the relationship, her name and address etc., were not furnished either in her pleadings or evidence. The lower court also disbelieved this allegation against the appellant. 14. Clause (b) to Section 18(2) provides that a wife would be entitled to separate maintenance if she was treated with such cruelty as to render her life with the life partner harmful and injurious. What conduct of the spouse amounts to cruelty within clause (b) would depend on individual facts of each case. We find from the impugned judgment of the lower court that it has not tried to understand the law in this respect though there was general discussion of evidence of the parties and witness as regards the conduct of the appellant. 15. We find from the impugned judgment of the lower court that it has not tried to understand the law in this respect though there was general discussion of evidence of the parties and witness as regards the conduct of the appellant. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ext.A3 statement of respondent is the best proof of her voluntarily leaving the company of the appellant with a view to abandon her matrimonial relationship with him forever. If this contention is proved, no doubt the respondent would be disentitled to separate maintenance unless she proves she has justifiable cause as provided by clause (b) (g) of Section 18(2) of the Act. 16. She does not dispute that she left the company of the appellant on 29.6.2013 own her accord. But she has explanation for her conduct and continued separate living in her parental home. 17. She testified that on the first day of the marriage itself, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by force. Her arms were tied up by the appellant and he behaved cruelly. RW1 denied the allegations against him. This is an allegation which no reasonable woman can prove by adducing any independent evidence. The credibility of her evidence is the intrinsic worth of what she has sworn after taking oath. Only circumstances can prove or disprove the allegation. Her allegation in our opinion may be true in all probabilities of the case. Even appellant admits that respondent used to avoid sleeping during night fearing him to touch her body against will. He said that he had an occasion to take her for treatment for her strange behaviour towards a husband. She too admits that she was sleepless in those days but was never treated for any kind of disease. She had to follow the appellant to a temple and she met a Poojari and nothing more happened. When testimonies of PW1 and RW1 are read together, respondent's allegation of forced sex appears to be believable. 18. What the respondent experienced at the hands of the appellant must be true and we consider that it is no less than an act of cruelty which a reasonable prudent woman can never tolerate. She cannot be disbelieved if she developed a reasonable apprehension of harm to her life at the hands of the appellant. 18. What the respondent experienced at the hands of the appellant must be true and we consider that it is no less than an act of cruelty which a reasonable prudent woman can never tolerate. She cannot be disbelieved if she developed a reasonable apprehension of harm to her life at the hands of the appellant. In Ext.A3 statement given before the learned Magistrate, she took a definite stand that she wanted to join her parents in lieu of the appellant. This must only be because of her reasonable apprehension of danger to life. We are satisfied that but for the misbehaviour and misconduct of the appellant, the respondent would never have been persuaded to leave his company on 29.6.2013. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the lower court as unsustainable on the ground that the respondent being a staff in a hospital as proved by her own admission in Ext.A3 statement given before JFCM, Chavakkad, she should not have been favoured with the decree of maintenance as if she was not possessed of any means. It is true that Ext.A3 statement recorded by the learned Magistrate Chavakkad on 6.7.2013 contains an admission that she joined as a staff in a hospital. She denied the alleged admission while being confronted with Ext.A3. We fail to understand as to how she could have denied the admission without any explanation. Law certainly permits a person to resile from an admission provided he has circumstances justifying such withdrawal. A statement made under a mistake or other justifying circumstances does not amount to an admission under law when it is properly explained. In the absence of any proper explanation being made by the respondent, the admission in Ext.A3 statement that she went to the hospital as a staff proves that she is an employee. Until the contrary is proved, she must be presumed to have source of some income. This however is not enough to relieve the appellant from his legal liability to maintain her. 20. Under Hindu Law, a wife possessed of means is not dis-entilted to claim maintenance. A husband with or without means is liable to maintain his wife so long as marital tie continues between them. His liability to maintain is not relaxed or taken away by Section 18 of the Act on the sole ground of dearth of means or assets at his disposal. A husband with or without means is liable to maintain his wife so long as marital tie continues between them. His liability to maintain is not relaxed or taken away by Section 18 of the Act on the sole ground of dearth of means or assets at his disposal. Therefore, even assuming that the admission of the respondent is true, she is not disqualified from demanding separate maintenance from appellant and at the most, it could only mitigate the quantum of maintenance which she can claim from the husband. 21. The appellant was proved to be a Tipper Lorry Driver, even by his own admission. There is no evidence for the allegation that he owned any Omni Van or Autorikshaw and rented them out for earning income. The lower court also disbelieved the case of the respondent in this respect. There is also no evidence to prove the respondent's allegation that appellant is earning monthly income of Rs.44,000/-. The evidence on record does not indicate in precise terms as to the quantum of income which the appellant earns every month. During his cross examination, RW1 made an admission that he had taken on rent an Autorikshaw. Therefore there is ground to believe that he has additional source of income also. In our opinion, agreeing with the lower court's view, the appellant has sufficient means to maintain the respondent. The view taken by the lower court is also that the appellant has sufficient means to maintain the respondent. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not liable to maintain the respondent under law is not worthy of any acceptance for the reasons indicated above by us. 22. However, we feel that the monthly maintenance fixed by the lower court is on the higher side. In the absence of evidence regarding precise income of the appellant and after taking into account the entire facts on record, it is only just and proper, to fix the monthly maintenance of the respondent at the rate of Rs.2,500/-. The lower court awarded Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards past and future maintenance, respectively. The rate fixed, according to us, being unreasonable requires to be modified to Rs.2,500/- per month since the month of desertion of the appellant and continuously thereafter. The lower court awarded Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards past and future maintenance, respectively. The rate fixed, according to us, being unreasonable requires to be modified to Rs.2,500/- per month since the month of desertion of the appellant and continuously thereafter. Thus the impugned judgment of the lower court deserves to be confirmed subject to the modification to the rate of monthly maintenance fixed by the lower court. In the result, the appeal is allowed only to the partial extent indicated above and in other respects the impugned judgment will stand confirmed. Respondent will recover from the appellant maintenance both past and future at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from the month of July 2013 and continuously thereafter so long as the decree remains unaltered having regard to the material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration as provided by Section 25 of the Act.