JUDGMENT : ANNIE JOHN, J. 1. The appellant is the respondent in O.P. No. 1024/2011 before the Family Court, Kannur. The OP was filed for the past maintenance from 17.11.2008 to 17.11.2011 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per moth to the first petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner. It is the case of the appellant that he got married with the first respondent on 03.06.2006 and the 2nd respondent was born out of their wedlock and they lived as husband and wife till 12.09.2008. The appellant cruelly behaved towards her and abandoned them from 12.09.2008 and so far he has not given anything towards maintenance. The appellant denied the entire allegations and averments in the petition. It is also stated that the first respondent is living separately without any reason and as per her whims and fancy, and the appellant is not liable to maintain the respondents. It is also stated that the first respondent has got her own income and she is getting Rs. 250/- per day. 2. The respondents had filed M.C. No. 272/2011 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the Family Court, Thalassery passed an order stating that the first respondent is residing separately without any justifiable reason. It was also found that she has got her own income. So the petition filed for getting maintenance was disallowed by the Family Court and there was a direction to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent alone. Against the said order, RP (FC) No. 138/2012 was filed by the respondents before this Court, which confirmed the order disallowing the claim of the first respondent on the ground that she is residing separately without any sufficient reason and enhanced the maintenance amount of the 2nd respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of order. The respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Exts.B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the appellant. On 22.10.2013, the Family Court, Thalassery passed decree and judgment directing the appellant to give past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to the first respondent and Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd respondent from 17.11.2008 to 31.03.2011 and the total amount would come to Rs. 70,000/- towards the first respondent and Rs. 42,000/- towards the 2nd respondent respectively. On 22.10.2013, the Family Court, Thalassery passed decree and judgment directing the appellant to give past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to the first respondent and Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd respondent from 17.11.2008 to 31.03.2011 and the total amount would come to Rs. 70,000/- towards the first respondent and Rs. 42,000/- towards the 2nd respondent respectively. Highly aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 3. According to the appellant, the Family Court ought to have found that the claim of the first respondent was disallowed in M.C. No. 272/2011 with a finding that the first respondent is residing separately without any justifiable reason. This Court also confirmed the order passed in M.C. No. 272/2011. So the first respondent, who is residing separately without any reason is not entitled for past maintenance as well as future maintenance. The Family Court ought to have found that the right for maintenance is already decided in M.C. No. 272/2011 and on revision, this Court has also confirmed the said order. The lower court ought to have found that the grounds of cruelty consists of assault, threatening, extracting gold, manhandling for abortion, demand for dowry etc. raised by the respondent in M.C. No. 272/2011 and in Ext.B1 order in the MC. This Court dismissed all the allegations and found that the first respondent is residing separately without any reason. The judgment in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 was not produced before the Family Court on 05.10.2013. On these grounds as urged above, the appellant prays for setting aside the order in O.P. No. 1024/2011. 4. When the matter was taken up for argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is only challenging the finding of the Family Court, Thalassery with regard to the fact that the first respondent is entitled to get past maintenance from 17.11.2008 to 31.03.2011 and he has no dispute with regard to the granting of past maintenance to the 2nd respondent. The Family Court, Thalassery has granted past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- for 28 months equivalent to Rs. 42,000/-. According to the appellant, he has paid the entire amount as past maintenance towards the first and 2nd respondent. 5. Now the only question to be considered is whether the first respondent is entitled to get past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- for 28 months. 1,500/- for 28 months equivalent to Rs. 42,000/-. According to the appellant, he has paid the entire amount as past maintenance towards the first and 2nd respondent. 5. Now the only question to be considered is whether the first respondent is entitled to get past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- for 28 months. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first respondent has already approached the Family Court, Thalassery by filing M.C. No. 272/2011. After taking evidence, the Family Court has disallowed the prayer of the first respondent to get maintenance from the appellant. The Family Court has allowed the claim of the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd respondent. Highly aggrieved by the order, the first respondent has approached this Court by filing RP (FC) No. 130/2012 vide order in the above said RP on 04.10.2013. This Court has confirmed the order of the court below and enhanced maintenance of the 2nd respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. Now the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the first respondent who was examined as PW1 before the Family Court in the above MC has deposed during cross examination that the appellant, who is her husband is in a manner of good character and conduct. But at the same time, she admitted that she does not like her husband. She felt disappointed due to the marriage with the appellant. She further deposed that even after the appellant has promised her that he will not harrass her, she is not prepared to live with him. On the basis of that, this Court also held that there is no sufficient reasons on the part of the first respondent to reside separately without forfeiting the right to claim maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that two witnesses who were examined in the MC case has deposed that they had participated in a mediation before this Court between the appellant and the first respondent. But the first respondent's father has stated that he is not interested to send the first respondent to the residence of the appellant. But the first respondent's father has stated that he is not interested to send the first respondent to the residence of the appellant. But the first respondent who was ready for a reunion has stated that there was no allegation of cruelty on the part of the appellant also and the Family Court has held that the separation between the appellant and the first respondent has taken place only due to the interference of the first respondent's father. So the first respondent is not interested to live with the appellant. This MC was filed in the year 2011 and parallel to that, the respondents have filed original O.P. No. 1024/2011 for getting past maintenance. In the original OP, she has narrated the cruelty exercised by the appellant and that she is not tolerant regarding the man handling on the side of the appellant. So she started living separately. According to her, there was demand of dowry on the part of the appellant. He harassed her in a very cruel manner and he has taken all of her gold ornaments and misappropriated the same and due to the manhandling and cruelty, she could not able to continue the life along with the appellant and on 12.09.2000 onwards she was completely abandoned without being any maintenance. Therefore, she sought for getting past maintenance @ Rs. 3500 per month from 17.11.2008 to 17.11.2011 and also sought for Rs. 3000 towards the past maintenance of the 2nd petitioner also. 7. In effect, she has given deposition before the Family Court in the above said MC that she has no complaint against her husband. Apart from that she has projected lots of allegations against the appellant in the original O.P. 8. Now the question to be considered is whether the respondent would be able to seek for past maintenance as prayed for. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Family Court ought to have found that the same court has disallowed the claim for maintenance of the first petitioner/ first respondent in M.C. No. 272/2011 with a finding that the first respondent is residing separately without any sufficient reason. This was also confirmed by this Court in RP (FC). So according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issues in M.C. No. 272/2011 and O.P. No. 1024/2011 are one and the same. This was also confirmed by this Court in RP (FC). So according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issues in M.C. No. 272/2011 and O.P. No. 1024/2011 are one and the same. Hence the finding in M.C. No. 272/2011 and in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 is binding in O.P. No. 1024/2011. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first respondent, who is residing separately without any reason is not entitled for past maintenance as well as future maintenance. On the basis of that, he has strenuously argued on these points and prayed before this Court to disallow the past maintenance, which was granted to the first respondent. 9. It has also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the right for maintenance is already decided by the Family Court in M.C. No. 272/2011 and on revision, this Court has confirmed the said order and as per the order, the first respondent is not entitled to get any amount towards the past maintenance. It is also pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Ext.B1 order, this Court dismissed all the allegations mentioned in M.C. No. 272/2011 and found that the first respondent is residing separately without any reasons. The main grievance of the appellant is that the judgment in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 was not produced before the Family Court on 05.10.2013. But this fact was not considered by the Family Court. Subsequent to that in RP (FC) No. 130/2012, the order of the Family Court was produced. Now the learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the past maintenance which was granted by the Family Court is without any justifiable reasons. In this connection, the interference of this Court is warranted to set aside the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 1024/2011 dated 22.10.2013. 10. While argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has brought our attention to the order passed in RP (FC) No. 130/2011 dated 04.10.2013. It was preferred from an order in M.C. No. 272/2011 of the Family Court, Thalassery and in that it has held that there was no allegation of cruelty on the part of the appellant and it has also held that the separation between the appellant as well as the first respondent had taken place only due to the interference of the first respondent's father. It is also stated by the first respondent during cross examination in the MC proceedings that the appellant is a man of good character and conduct. But at the same time, she admitted that she does not like her husband. In fact the first respondent is having a sound financial background. But the appellant is only a mason by profession. It has also stated in the deposition in MC that she felt disappointed due to her marriage with the appellant. She has further deposed that even after, the appellant has promised that he would not harass her, she was not prepared to live with him. So on the strength of the deposition of the first respondent, the Family Court has held that there was no sufficient reasons to reside separately without forfeiting the right to claim maintenance. Accordingly the maintenance sought by the first respondent was rejected and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is already a finding against the first respondent that she was started residing separately without any justifiable reason. So, she is not entitled to seek for past maintenance and the future maintenance, as prayed for. She has sought for past maintenance from 17.11.2008 to 11.04.2009 stating that she had no regular employment to get fixed earning. In fact the first respondent has no complaint against the appellant that she was subject to cruelty by the appellant. The impugned order was passed on 22.10.2013 and the order in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 was passed on 04.10.2013 and the concerned Family Court has no opportunity to have a glance at the order passed in RP (FC) No. 130/2012. 11. When the first respondent who is wife of the appellant wants to get maintenance, she has to prove that she was subject to cruelty or she started living separately without any justifiable reason. 12. In this connection, we have gone through Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which reads thus: 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 lifetime. 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 lifetime. (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 willfully 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. 13. If the first respondent seeks maintenance, she has to establish the ingredients as contemplated under Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. When she was in box during evidence in MC proceedings, she has no complaint against the appellant. She has no case that the appellant had abandoned her without justifiable reasons and without her consent or against her wish and wilfully neglected her and she has no case that she was treated with cruelty so as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband. Further she has no case that the appellant is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy or he has any other wife living with him or he keeps a concubine in his house in which his wife is living or if there is any other cause justifying living separately. 14. It is true that wife or husband will have the obligation of maintaining the other spouse when the other spouse is neglected by him or her without lawful excuse having got sufficient means while the other spouse got no means to maintain herself or himself having entered into the wedlock. 15. 14. It is true that wife or husband will have the obligation of maintaining the other spouse when the other spouse is neglected by him or her without lawful excuse having got sufficient means while the other spouse got no means to maintain herself or himself having entered into the wedlock. 15. Here, the first respondent has not established any of the grounds as stipulated under Section 18 (1) and (2) (a) to (g) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, the finding entered by the Family Court, Thalassery is without going through the relevant provisions as contemplated under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. The learned Family Court Judge has just arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent is entitled for past maintenance is without any evidence and in the light of the production of the order in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 as well as considering the relevant provision under Section 18 of the Act, we have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent is not entitled to get past maintenance as prayed for. 16. In view of the discussion as stated above, we are inclined to set aside the finding to the effect that the first respondent is entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- in lump-sum towards the past maintenance. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part as follows: (1) The finding entered to the effect that the first respondent is entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- in lump-sum towards the past maintenance is hereby set aside. (2) The finding to the effect that the 2nd respondent is entitled for Rs. 42,000/- in lump-sum towards the past maintenance is upheld. (3) Both sides are directed to suffer their respective costs.