admitted in his evidence that his father was a contractor and he himself is in a scrap business. He has admitted that at Bhokar Phata, there is one plot in his name and in the name of his brother. Thus, there is the evidence about the occupation, source of income of the husband and he admits that when his first wife, the respondent is alive, he has married second time. His evidence shows that he did not make any provision for maintenance of his wife and the daughter. His evidence shows that he had not taken care of the wife during her delivery. The fact that the respondent has a daughter from the present petitioner, is sufficient to infer that the case of the husband that she does not like him is not true. Further, the evidence on record does not show that the parents of the wife are rich and they can afford to maintain the wife. The material on the record is sufficient to make out that there is domestic violence and some order needs to be made in favour of wife to see that she has a place of residence and she gets some amount for her maintenance. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply the mind and he observed that there is no evidence to show that the husband owns some property or he makes earning. There are the admissions of the husband during cross examination of the aforesaid nature. It can be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has unnecessarily reduced the
