9.Further, in paragraph No.11 of the petition, she clearly stated about the interim maintenance granted in the pending H.M.O.P., proceedings. Once the order was passed in the said proceedings, there is no question of independent proof of sufficient cause. In the petition she had annexed the documents ie., the pleadings of the H.M.O.P.NO.5 of 2007 and the counter filed in the interim maintenance petition. From the above annexed documents, it is clear that the petitioner has every reason to live separately and only due to the circumstances stated in the above pleadings she is staying away. In the said petition, she has made serious allegation against the respondent and the respondent also has made serious allegation against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, from the available materials, this Court feels that the petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and claim the maintenance from the respondent. When, the respondent has failed to appear and produce any evidence to counter the testimony of the petitioner, the Court below committed error in dismissing the maintenance petition. In view of the dismissal of the H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2007 filed by the husband, the relationship is not disputed and the allegation made by the
