6. The learned counsel for the respondent would, on the other hand, seek to contend that the Court below on taking note of the evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of the respondent, has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent had justification to stay away from the appellant. It is pointed out that the appellant had failed to discharge his marital obligation as her husband and had even failed to maintain the respondent and the children. In that regard, it is contended that the respondent had also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered in F.C.(Crl.) Case No.310/2012, wherein also the Court below having taken note of the evidence has arrived at the conclusion that keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, the respondent was justified in not joining the appellant in the matrimonial home. In that light, when the Court below has found justification to grant the maintenance by approving the action of the respondent in staying away, a different conclusion in any event cannot be reached in a proceeding under Section 9 and, therefore, it is contended that the Court below was justified and the judgment does not call for interference.
