JUDGMENT : K.Manmadha Rao, J. The present appeal came to be filed, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 [for short, “F.C. Act”], challenging the order dated 18.02.2020 passed in F.C.O.P. No.60 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the trial Court”). By way of the said order, the Court below granted maintenance to the respondents herein @ Rs.9,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively from the date of the said order. 2. The respondents herein filed the above mentioned F.C.O.P. No.60 of 2018 against the appellant herein for the following reliefs: “… (a) Directing the appellant to pay maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents herein (i.e., Rs.15,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent) towards food, clothes shelter, medicines and education; (b) Directing the appellant to pay past maintenance to both the respondents @ Rs.6,20,000/- from May 2016 till the date of that petition; and (c) Costs of the petition and …” 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that : The 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2015 as per Hindu rites and Caste custom at Khargpur. At the time of marriage, her parents spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, gave Rs.6,00,000/- dowry, Rs.1,00,000/- towards vehicle, Rs.60,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam and also sare samans worth Rs.1,00,000/- besides present two tulas of gold to the respondent as demanded by them. They lived together one and half years and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a baby girl i.e., the 2nd petitioner on 26.8.2016. According to her, from the beginning, the respondent, his parents, his brother and aunt Sarada started harassing her both physically and mentally demanding her to bring more amount from her parents. She pleaded that the parents of the respondent advised her to leave him permanently. She further pleaded that after their marriage, only on four occasions, she went to her parents’ house. Subsequently, her parents invited the respondent on the occasion of their first marriage anniversary, but he refused and insulted by using filthy language, stating that it is to worst to come to their house. She further pleaded that after their marriage, only on four occasions, she went to her parents’ house. Subsequently, her parents invited the respondent on the occasion of their first marriage anniversary, but he refused and insulted by using filthy language, stating that it is to worst to come to their house. After birth of the 2nd petitioner, none came from the house of the respondent and even did not make a phone call for courtesy. Thereafter, so many requests were made by the mother of the 1st petitioner to the respondent to take back his wife and baby girl, but the respondent ignored their words as he was not interested to take her along with girl child and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Though the respondent refused to take them back, she did not lodge any report before the police about their harassment and desertion. She also pleaded that she is an un-employee and herself and her daughter are depending upon her parents, who are more than 70 years old and that she has no movable or immovable properties and has no means for their livelihood. The 1st petitioner mainly pleaded that her husband/the respondent has been working in Indian Railways as a Technician, Grade-II in Wagon Shop at Kharagpur and drawing Rs.60,000/- per month as salary and further he is earning Rs.30,000/- on finance business, in total, he is getting Rs.90,000/- per month and leading lavish life, but intentionally neglecting them to their fate. Hence, she filed the above FCOP for the above said relief. 5. Counter came to be filed by the respondent therein admitting the relationship in between himself and the 1st petitioner therein, but refuting the other allegations made in the 1st petitioner inter alia contending that he studied 10th class, his father and the father of the 1st petitioner worked in Railway department at Kharagpur. There was acquaintance between them, after his father took voluntary retirement, due to his ill-health, he got Class-IV job under compassionate ground as a Welder in Railway department. After the retirement of the father of the 1st petitioner, she did her Post Graduation and also doing a private job at Vizianagarm. After some time, one Krishan Rao and Nageswara Rao, who were also working in Railway department, Kharagpur negotiated the marriage between them. After the retirement of the father of the 1st petitioner, she did her Post Graduation and also doing a private job at Vizianagarm. After some time, one Krishan Rao and Nageswara Rao, who were also working in Railway department, Kharagpur negotiated the marriage between them. Both parents agreed in their presence that the expenses of the marriage shall be borne by the parents of the 1st petitioner and the parents of the respondent were adorn her 5 tulas of gold articles Nallapusalu, Pustalathadu and two rings. Accordingly, the marriage took place at Kharagpur on 30.06.2015. It is further stated that on the nuptial night itself, the 1st petitioner requested him to shift the family from Kharagpur to Viziangarm or Visakhapatnam by applying for transfer. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner stated that the husband of her sister’s lead their conjugal life as per the wish of her sister and also living separately and for that she demanded the respondent to come to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam on transfer, otherwise she will not lead conjugal life with him. At that time, she demanded the respondent to give Rs.1,00,000/- to her parents towards expenses of the delivery and also Rs.10,000/- to them towards their maintenance, for which, he refused. Meanwhile, on 01.12.2018 the father of the respondent died and the same is informed to his wife and her parents, but they did not attend. Thereafter, surprisingly, the respondent received notice from the Court. The respondent denied that he never harassed 1st petitioner and her parents in any manner and he is not willing to bring them back and lead conjugal life with the 1st petitioner. Hence, he filed a Matrimonial Suit No.840 of 2018 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on the file of District Court, Paschim Medinapur, West Bengal. It is further stated that, recently, he got promotion as Grade-I Welder and he is getting Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. He has no other income or other source of property and that his mother is also depending on him and she requires Rs.5,000/- per month for her medical expenses. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to prove her case, the 1st petitioner/wife herself examined as PW.1 and examined her father as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent/husband, he himself examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to prove her case, the 1st petitioner/wife herself examined as PW.1 and examined her father as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent/husband, he himself examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. One P. Krishna Rao, who is the mediator of their marriage was examined as C.W.1. 7. After analyzing the evidence produced and the documents filed, the trial Court allowed the above FCOP granting maintenance @ Rs.9,000/- to the 1st petitioner/wife and Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd petitioner/baby girl from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/respondent. 8. Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/appellant mainly contended that the attitude of his wife was indifferent from the time of marriage. According to him, on the nuptial night itself, the 1st petitioner i.e., wife requested the respondent/appellant to shift the family from Kharagpur to Vizianagarm or Visakhapatnam by applying transfer, but when the appellant refused as his parents are old and the health condition of his father is not good, the petitioner/wife became aggressive and abused the appellant. On the next day, all of them came to Vizianagarm from Kharagpur, stayed there for three days, then returned to Kharagpur but after one week the 1st respondent came to Vizianagaram without any intimation. Immediately the appellant came to Vizianagarma nd broughter her from her parents’ house. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents argued that at the time of marriage of the appellant and the 1st respondent, as demanded by the appellant and his family, her father gave Rs.6,00,000/- dowry, Rs.1,00,000/- towards vehicle, Rs.60,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam, sare samans worth Rs.1,00,000/- and presented two tulas of gold to the appellant and after their marriage, they lived together only for 1 ½ years. But from the beginning, the appellant and his family members used to harass the 1st respondent both physically and mentally demanding her to bring more amount and even during her pregnancy, they did not provide proper food and medicines, insulted her parents and used to come late nights and further used to talk to others. But from the beginning, the appellant and his family members used to harass the 1st respondent both physically and mentally demanding her to bring more amount and even during her pregnancy, they did not provide proper food and medicines, insulted her parents and used to come late nights and further used to talk to others. Even during pregnancy also, they did not allow her to speak to her parents over phone. Accordingly, both the counsels raised rival contentions. 11. Further, perused the evidence on record that, PW.1, in her evidence deposed that, her husband is working in Indian Railways as a Technician and he is drawing Rs.50,000/- as salary and also getting Rs.30,000/- from finance business and after their marriage, they lived together only for 1 ½ years and her husband and his family members started harassing both physically and mentally to bring more amount, even during pregnancy they did not provide proper food and medicines; her husband insulted her parents and used to come late nights and further used to talk to others. She further deposed that even her mother requested the appellant and his parents to take them back but the appellant refused to do so as they have no interest on girl child. She further deposed that though he has not provided food and medical aid to them, the appellant demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 12. PW.2, who is the father of the 1st respondent/wife deposed that as if the appellant and his family members directly demanded Rs.5,00,000/- he expressed his inability. But during his cross-examination, he categorically stated that the appellant did not demand him to give additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and it is her daughter informed him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 with regard to demand of dowry is a hearsay. 13. CW.1, who is the mediator of both parties, deposed that he is the elder to their marriage and he was present through tout the negotiations for the marriage. But nothing was elicited from him by the respondents about giving of dowry, adapaduchu lanchanams or amount for bike or sare samans. 14. RW.1, who is the appellant herein, deposed in his evidence that the 1st respondent and her family members demanded him to live separately and try for transfer from Kharagpur to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam, but he refused. He also deposed that the 1st respondent is not willing to lead conjugal life at Kharagpur. 14. RW.1, who is the appellant herein, deposed in his evidence that the 1st respondent and her family members demanded him to live separately and try for transfer from Kharagpur to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam, but he refused. He also deposed that the 1st respondent is not willing to lead conjugal life at Kharagpur. Even informed each and everything to the elder Krishna Rao-CW.1, he negotiated with the 1st respondent and her family members by phone and he informed that she is not willing to lead conjugal life at Kharagpur and her parents also supported her. In April, 2017 the appellant again came to Vizianagaram and requested to join him, but the 1st respondent/wife refused and demanded to get transfer either Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam and also demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for delivery expenses and Rs.10,000/- per month for their maintenance. 15. From the above evidence and the answers elicited in the examination, it is clear that the appellant is working in Indian Railways as a Technician and he is drawing Rs.50,000/- as salary and also getting Rs.30,000/- from finance business. According to the appellant, he recently got promotion as Grade-I Welder and getting Rs.30,000/- per month as salary and he has no other source of income or no other property. His mother also depending on him and Rs.5,000/- per month is required for her medical expenses. 16. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent is the wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2015 at Kharagpur and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with the 2nd respondent on 26.08.2016. It is also an admitted fact that the father of the appellant was a Railway employee residing at Kharagpur and due to his ill-health, he took voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the appellant got employment in Railway and working at Khargapur. It is also an admitted fact that the father of the 1st respondent was also a retired Railway employee and before his retirement he was also a resident of Kharagpur. After his retirement, he came down to Viziangaram. Thereafter, the appellant got employment in Railway and working at Khargapur. It is also an admitted fact that the father of the 1st respondent was also a retired Railway employee and before his retirement he was also a resident of Kharagpur. After his retirement, he came down to Viziangaram. It is an admitted fact that at the time of the marriage of the 1st respondent and the appellant, her father was retired and though it is a custom in their caste to perform the marriage at the place of the bride, since due to the sickness of the father of the appellant, on the request of the family of the bridegroom, the marriage was performed at Kharagpur and the expenditure of the marriage was incurred by the bride family. 17. It is pertinent to mention here the scope of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which reads as under: 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. 18. (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. 18. As per Section 18(1) of the Act, as a general rule, a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. She can live separately without foregoing her claim for maintenance under the circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (g) of sub Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. 19. In the case on hand, admittedly, the 1st respondent is claiming maintenance by living separately from the appellant. Therefore, only point to be considered is, whether her claim would fall under any of the grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. 20. It is not the case of the 1st respondent/wife that the appellant/husband is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy or that he has any other wife living; that he keeps a concubine in the same house in which she is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; or ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. Hence, clauses (c) to (f) of the Act, will not get attracted to the facts of the case. The appellant is not contesting the matter on any of the grounds enumerated under sub-section (3) of the Act. Therefore, what is to be considered is, whether the case of the 1st respondent falls under clauses (a), (b) and (g) of sub-section (2) of the Act. 21. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant is that on the nuptial night itself, the 1st respondent asked him to come to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam by getting transfer, but he refused, and thereafter, she joined him, she came to Vizianagaram without informing anybody. On that, the appellant came to Vizianagaram and brought her back. But when he came to Vizianagaram, the 1st respondent and her parents insisted him to take separate house and come to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam by applying transfer. 22. This Court observed that both parties are making allegations against each other with regard to joining each other. But none of parties has taken any steps for restitution. But when he came to Vizianagaram, the 1st respondent and her parents insisted him to take separate house and come to Vizianagaram or Visakhapatnam by applying transfer. 22. This Court observed that both parties are making allegations against each other with regard to joining each other. But none of parties has taken any steps for restitution. No doubt, the appellant filed a Matrimonial Suit No.840 of 2018 before the District Court, Paschim Midnapur, West Bengal for restitution of conjugal rights and subsequently, it was transferred to the Court below and re-numbered as FCOP No.26 of 2019. But it is admitted by RW.1 that he filed the said case subsequent to receipt of notice in that case. Had really the 1st respondent did not join after delivery, there is no proper circumstance or explanation from him, why he has not taken any steps to get her back under due process of law until she filed the above OP. 23. The Law is well settled that it is not only moral obligation, but a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife and children under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Madras High Court in a decision in Vasantha Vs. Chandran, 2003 Madras 214 held that : “When the husband did not take any effort to take the wife back to matrimonial home, wife is entitled to maintenance.” 24. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is residing with the 1st respondent. Therefore, both the respondents are entitled for maintenance. 25. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is working in Indian Railways as a Technician. According to the respondents, the appellant is drawing Rs.50,000/- as salary and also getting Rs.30,000/- from finance business. But, according to the appellant, he recently got promotion as Grade-I Welder and getting Rs.30,000/- per month as salary and he has no other source of income or no other property and that his mother is also depending on him and Rs.5,000/- per month is required for her medical expenses. PWs.1 and 2 on one hand and R.W.1 on the other hand deposed on the lines of their respective versions. During cross-examination, P.W1/1st respondent denied that she is doing a private job. PWs.1 and 2 on one hand and R.W.1 on the other hand deposed on the lines of their respective versions. During cross-examination, P.W1/1st respondent denied that she is doing a private job. The respondents filed Ex.A5 - the information obtained as to the pay particulars of the appellant, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the employer of the appellant. As per the same, by November, 2019, the appellant’s Gross salary was Rs.40,942/- and Net salary being Rs.35,460/-. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the trial Court without appreciating the material on record, passed an order by way of maintenance to the respondents, is not at all sustainable under law and raised the objections on determining the quantum of maintenance and placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Versus Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 wherein it was held in para-15, as under: “15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2.2.20153 awarding a maintenance of Rs.16,000/- to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842/- after deduction of Rs.24,000/- on account of GPF and Rs.12,000/- towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95,527/-. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs.95,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs.95,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son.” 27. The said order was passed while dealing with the Review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC basing on the facts in that particular case and there is no ratio laid down as such. In view of the above, the facts of the above case are not helpful to the case of the appellant in the present case on hand. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that as per Section 23(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act while determining the amount of maintenance, (a) the Court has to see the position and status of the parties; (b) reasonable wants of the claimant and (c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so, but the Court below failed to consider the same while determining the quantum of maintenance and erred in awarding more than 40% of the appellant’s income and that erred in awarding Rs.9,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to the respondents no.1 and 2 towards maintenance without assigning any reasons. 29. The objections raised by the appellant are not maintainable in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein, the Apex Court has categorically laid down the criterion for determining the quantum of maintenance. The Apex Court observed as under: “III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source.” 30. The appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The appellant is working in Indian Railways as a Technician and recently got promotion as Grade-I Welder and as per the same, his Gross salary is Rs.40,942/- and Net salary is Rs.35,460/-. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is residing in the quarter provided by the Railway authorities. He admitted during cross-examination that his brother is an employee and his mother is a family pensioner and they are not financially depending on him. Therefore, except the maintenance of the respondents and himself, he has no other financial burdens. Though the respondents pleaded as if the appellant is doing finance business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, it is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, except the maintenance of the respondents and himself, he has no other financial burdens. Though the respondents pleaded as if the appellant is doing finance business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, it is not supported by any evidence. No material has been placed on record to show that the 1st respondent- is able to sustain herself. So also, the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 1st respondent can sustain herself. 31. After perusing the entire case on record, we find that the trial Court has rightly allowed the FCOP No.60 of 2018 by granting maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to the 1st petitioner/1st respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent, which is just and reasonable. 32. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of both the parties, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 33. Accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Appeal, shall stand closed.