JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and under Order XXXXI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2003, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. No. 86 of 2001, wherein and whereby the leaned Judge partly decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 750/- p.m. to the respondent towards her maintenance. 2. The facts that led to the filing of the present appeal, succinctly, are as follows: 3. The respondent filed the above referred suit stating that her marriage with the appellant was performed as per caste custom and Hindu rites on 30.12.1996. After a short period of the marriage, the appellant started harassing her saying that he was not willing to marry her and only on account of compulsion from his parents, he agreed to marry her. The complaint of the respondent was that the mother of the appellant also tortured her and used her to scold her in filthy language. The appellant was incapable of taking any decision independently because he was under the control of his mother. The respondent was unable to maintain herself and hence she filed the suit claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the appellant apart from Rs. 20,000/- towards legal expenses. 4. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the marriage between him and the respondent was not consummated. That the respondent had no interest to marry him, and that she intended to marry some other person, and with that intention she never cooperated with the appellant for consummation of their marriage. She used to quarrel with the appellant on one pretext or the other. The respondent used to reside at her parents' house for months together. The respondent demanded him to reside at Hyderabad to which he disagreed as his parents were sick. As the respondent is not cooperating for the marital life, he filed a divorce petition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad district on the ground of desertion and cruelty and after receiving summons in that case, the respondent and her parents started to take revenge against him. As the respondent is not cooperating for the marital life, he filed a divorce petition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad district on the ground of desertion and cruelty and after receiving summons in that case, the respondent and her parents started to take revenge against him. The respondent foisted a false case against him and made him to be put under lockup for 2 to 3 days. In that case, at the intervention and duress of the police, an agreement was executed on 20.9.2000 he paid Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent towards marriage expenses and full satisfaction towards her maintenance. According to the said agreement, the respondent shall not initiate further proceedings and shall accept for mutual divorce. Some time thereafter, concealing the above referred agreement, the respondent again filed a criminal case before the Court of XXII MM Court, Nampally. The respondent and her parents also went to police officials and finally on 09.8.2001, it was settled for Rs. 1,20,000/- including the already paid amount of Rs. 50,000/- plus some articles. Before the police the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount and articles. However, according to the said settlement, the respondent has to withdraw the present suit and give divorce to the appellant, but she did not. At the instance of the respondent the Criminal Court at Nampally transferred the case to the court below where it was numbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2001. The respondent is earning Rs. 100/- per day by doing tailoring work. Hence the appellant prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance? If so, for how much amount? ii. To what relief? 6. Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both sides. During the course of recording of evidence, respective parties examined themselves as P.W.1 and D.W.1. On defendant's side one K. Vittal Rao was examined as D.W.2. However, no documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent, but on behalf of the appellant Exs. B.1 to B.3 were marked. 7. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also the material available on record, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the appellant and accordingly decreed the suit partly as stated supra. However, no documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent, but on behalf of the appellant Exs. B.1 to B.3 were marked. 7. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also the material available on record, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the appellant and accordingly decreed the suit partly as stated supra. Hence the present appeal by the husband. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent filed the suit concealing the agreements dated 20.9.2000 and 09.8.2001 and also receipt of amounts from the appellant under the said agreements. 9. As seen from the record and the evidence let in on behalf of both parties, there is no dispute with regard to the status of the parties to this appeal as husband and wife respectively since neither of them denied the factum of marriage. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is maternal uncle's daughter of the appellant. 10. In the chief examination affidavit of the respondent being P.W.1, she stated that her parents performed her marriage with the appellant by spending huge amounts and that for that purpose her parents sold part of their house in the year 1998 to fulfill the unlawful demands of the appellant. More over her parent presented gold and other valuable items to the appellant. Her in-laws always used to ill-treat her. In the months of March and April 1997 when the respondent fell ill, instead of providing medical assistance to her, the appellant and his parents dropped her at her parents' house and did not turn up. Thereafter in the month of October, her father took her to the house of the appellant and dropped her by fulfilling all the formalities according to the wishes of her in-laws. Again on the day of Ugadi festival, 1998 when the respondent was performing pooja, her mother-in-law abused her in filthy language and assaulted her physically stating that unless she bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents' house they will not allow her to stay in the matrimonial house. The parents of the respondent tried to amicably settle the matter but in vain. Hence, being unable to bear with the harassment meted out by her in-laws and husband, the respondent was forced to stay at her parents' house as there was threat to her life in the house of her in-laws. The parents of the respondent tried to amicably settle the matter but in vain. Hence, being unable to bear with the harassment meted out by her in-laws and husband, the respondent was forced to stay at her parents' house as there was threat to her life in the house of her in-laws. She is an uneducated and unemployed married woman. The appellant neglected to maintain her. The appellant is having sufficient sources of incomes and hence she is entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant as she is unable to maintain herself. 11. In the cross examination the respondent stated that according to her the appellant is earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing scooter mechanic work. She denied the suggestion that she is doing tailoring work and earns some amount. On 20.9.2000 (Ex. B.1) the police drafted an agreement in the police station and she signed on it at the instance of police. She received Rs. 50,000/- and executed a receipt (Ex. B.2). According to her, Ex. B.1 was executed for cancellation of criminal case only and for return of articles. She denied the suggestion that she agreed for divorce and forfeiture of maintenance. She admitted that under the second agreement dated 09.8.2001 (Ex. B.3) she received further amount of Rs. 50,000/- and signed on it. 12. The appellant filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the stand taken in his written statement. In the cross-examination, the appellant admitted that the gold and household articles of the respondent were with him and that he did not return them. In the re-examination, the appellant had categorically admitted that he was having capacity to maintain his wife even by taking a separate house. 13. D.W.2 who is the paternal uncle of the appellant filed his chief examination affidavit sailing along with the appellant. As seen from his evidence he was a witness to the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and also to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses. 14. The case of both appellant and respondent is oath against oath. On one side the respondent states the appellant and his mother subjected her to cruelty and finally the appellant neglected her. On the other side the appellant states that the respondent herself deserted him without any justifiable cause. 14. The case of both appellant and respondent is oath against oath. On one side the respondent states the appellant and his mother subjected her to cruelty and finally the appellant neglected her. On the other side the appellant states that the respondent herself deserted him without any justifiable cause. However, in the backdrop of the evidence let in, it seems, none of them is willing to continue the matrimonial life and the marital bond between them has irretrievably broken. The question that arises for consideration in the case on hand is who neglected whom. According to the respondent there was no consummation of the marriage as the mother of the appellant used to sleep between them. Moreover, in the cross examination the appellant admitted that he never touched his wife, the respondent. The respondent stated that on so many occasions, her mother-in-law beat her physically. In such circumstances the respondent is justified in staying away from her husband. 15. Much was said by both parties with regard to Exs. B.1 to B.3. But they have no legal sanctity because, as rightly observed by the Court below, all those documents were executed in police station. The police have nothing to do in conjugal matters. Moreover, no person cited as witness to those documents was examined before the Court. 16. Section 18 (2) (b) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as under: Maintenance of wife. -- (1) x x x x x x (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance-- (a) x x x x x x (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; 17. In the case on hand, the allegation of the respondent is that there is every threat to her life in the matrimonial home and even though she performed all her domestic obligations towards her husband and in-laws, they always used to beat her, insult her and degrade her. It is her further allegation that the appellant used to treat her as a slave, bonded labour and caused undue hardship by passing sarcastic remarks. of course, the appellant tried to justify his case by saying that he tried to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home through some mediations. It is her further allegation that the appellant used to treat her as a slave, bonded labour and caused undue hardship by passing sarcastic remarks. of course, the appellant tried to justify his case by saying that he tried to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home through some mediations. But there is no corroboration on that aspect. The stand of the appellant is that the respondent and her parents demanded the appellant to come down to Hyderabad and stay at their house as illatom son-in-law. Though D.W.2, to some extent, supported the version of the appellant, since he is closely related to the appellant being his paternal uncle, much credence cannot be attached to his evidence. To substantiate his case the appellant has not examined any independent witness before the Court. 18. From the evidence of the respondent, it can be presumed that there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the appellant. Therefore, certainly, the respondent shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance. 19. There is no documentary proof with regard to the income and financial status of the appellant. The respondent herself stated in her cross examination that the appellant is earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing scooter mechanic work. 20. In the light of the above legal principle, and in view of the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the appellant has neglected the respondent and failed to pay maintenance to her. The trial Court, though the respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- p.m., taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, granted an amount of Rs. 750/- p.m. towards her maintenance. Since this appeal is filed by the husband - appellant, we do not wish to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for its findings and accordingly decreed the suit partly, which in our considered view does not warrant any interference at this appellate stage. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this appeal shall also stand dismissed.