to what sort of harassment the respondent meted out to her. Though it was her complaint that her husband and his parents were beating her severely, but still she could live with R.W.1 till 2010. The trial court further observed that in the evidence of P.W.1, it was elicited that P.W.1 and R.W.1 were living separately from the parents of R.W.1 and that all the sisters of R.W.1 were married and living with their husbands and so, the allegation of P.W.1 that he was harassing her and all his family members were beating P.W.1, cannot be accepted. However, there were some differences between P.W.1 and R.W.1, which ultimately led to giving a report by P.W.1 to police and thereby, R.W.1 was in judicial custody for some period. The trial court observed that the relationship between P.W.1 and R.W.1 was strained and thereby, P.W.1 and her children were living with her mother. In that view, a reasonable amount towards maintenance has to be provided by the respondents. The trial court further observed that the first petitioner was a B.Sc., B.Ed., graduate and according to R.W.1, she was working as a teacher, however, no document was filed to substantiate the same and therefore, all the petitioners were entitled to maintenance. With the above observations, the trial court awarded Rs.500/- per month to the first petitioner i.e., wife and Rs.1,500/- to petitioners 2 and 3 i.e., minor sons.
