14. Having perused the evidence afresh, this court is of the view that the findings as returned by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the respondent as OPW-1 has categorically stated that he was compelled to call the members of the family of the petitioner No.1 and asked them to take back the petitioner from the matrimonial home, there should not have been any finding that the petitioner No.1 had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Though he has stated later on that he went to bring her back or that the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily. Even if her allegation regarding physical torture is not totally believed by this court but in view of brooding presence of the constitutional empathy this court is under duty to make a balance between the vagrancy and the rigours of the provisions of law under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, right now no order of enhancement would be made in favour of the petitioner No.2.
