After going through the evidence adduced in the family

court, the High Court judge observed that the tenor of the cross-examination of the wife suggest that she was reluctant to stay with her husband in a joint family and that she left the house allegedly of her own wish and took the small child with her and stayed with her parents. "Apparently, wife's father was also a government servant having presentable quarters as compared to the quarters allotted to the husband which was situated in a chawl-like structure. It is also brought to our notice that some attempts were made by the husband to bring back his wife for cohabitation, but, none of these letters were answered by her," the judge noted. Though this fact is admitted by the wife in her cross-examination, still the fact remains that the husband stopped then and there and did not file any plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the court remarked. "As such, inaction on the part of the parties led to the present situation that since 2000, the parties are staying apart and the small child, which has now grown up into a girl aged 13, remained with wife and all along she provided for all the necessities and needs of the child that also in a sum of Rs 1,000 per month awarded by the trial court, without there being any maintenance allowance in favour of the wife." The court further observed that the husband is working in Police Department in Reserved Police Force and at the time of filing of the petition for maintenance, he was drawing a salary of about Rs 7000 per month. By passage of time, definitely there must have been an increase in his salary as long period of 13 years has lapsed as on today, and period of five years have passed since wife's appeal was filed.