“8. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the High Court had passed the impugned order in a very perfunctory manner without appreciating the conduct of the respondent during the proceedings before the Family Court. He submitted that the version of the appellant-wife, who had stepped into the witness box, as also the version of the other witnesses examined by her had remained unchallenged, as the Family Court had closed the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court not to believe the version of the appellant-wife which was stated by her on oath. However, the Family Court accepted all the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, without there being any evidence on record adduced by the respondent, and disallowed the Maintenance application qua the appellant-wife, and the High Court also erroneously confirmed the said order passed by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home along with the children without any justifiable reason and had failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself. He further submitted that though the respondent has a party plot, the same having been closed, he has no source of income. According to him, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts, should not be interfered by this Court.
