Shripat Rao, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Chief City Magistrate, awarding maintenance to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters. The respondent in her petition in the lower Court stated that her husband was ill-treating her and forced her to go away from his house. She has given her statement on oath in this respect and a doctor has been produced to show that there were marks of violence upon her person. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that ill-treatment of the wife was proved by the evidence in the case.
2. After thoroughly going into the evidence and the record of the case, I am not prepared to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the lower Court in this respect and agree with it that neglect of the husband to maintain the wife has been sufficiently proved. The husband has not made out a case that the wife refused to live with him without sufficient cause. The ill-treatment of the wife is a sufficient cause for her to leave the house and live separately from her husband. In view of the income, evidence* on which point has been led, I agree with the lower Court that Rs. 50/- per month is the proper allowance to be allowed to the wife.
3. The second question is with regard to the maintenance of the two daughters. They are minors, and their ages at the time of the filing of the petition have been shown as 3 years and 5 years. There has been some conflict of opinion on the point whether in the case of minor daughters their living with the mother would be a good cause for allowing them maintenance when the father offers to maintain them if they be sent to his house. It was argued by Raja Bahadur Bishveshwarnath, the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner-husband, that so far as the question of maintaining the minor daughters was concerned, neglect or refusal has not been proved. It is a question again of appreciation of evidence. No doubt, there is some evidence in the case that for some months the husband sent money-orders of Rs. 50/- per month towards the maintenance of the minors.
In such a case it is difficult to disagree with the conclusion of the lower Court that on the day on which the husband discontinued sending this money to the minors, there has been neglect on his part to maintain them. Moreover, when the daughters are minors, and (sic.) it is in their best interest that they should continue to remain with the mother. The father's demand for the custody of the children amounts to refusal to maintain them. This view has been held in In Re Bai Manek AIR (15) 1928 Bom 418. In that case, the question was of allowing maintenance to Hindu daughters of the ages 5 and 10 years, who were in the custody of their mother, who was receiving separate maintenance. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court were of the opinion that in view of the fact that the interests of the girls would be better looked after by the mother, separate maintenance for the minors was just and proper. In the case before me also, the daughters are in the custody of the mother and the principle laid down in the Bombay case applies.
4. In Mt. Zahurabi v. Mohamed Yousuf 32 Cri LJ 247 (Lah), it was held that in the case of a minor child, living with the guardian, the condition imposed by the father that he would maintain it only if the child went to reside with him is tantamount to refusal to maintain the child. In the case before me, the husband in his deposition and also in his various letters has stated that he continued to send Rs. 50/- for the maintenance of his children for some time, but when the wife refused to send the children over to his house, he stopped the maintenance of the children. This, in my view, is tantamount to refusal to maintain the children.
5. The next question to be considered is with regard to the amount of maintenance to the minor daughters. As is clear from their ages Rs. 50/- per child per month seems to be out of proportion with the income of the husband as he has married another lady. The husband did send for some months Rs. 50/- towards the maintenance of both the children, and I think Rs. 50/- would be sufficient for their maintenance. Thus, the amount of Rs. 100/-awarded by the lower Court on this account must be reduced to that of Rs. 50/-. Each child, therefore, will get Rs. 25/- per month. Therefore, while upholding the main conclusions arrived at by the lower Court, I reduce the amount of maintenance awarded to the children as above and accordingly amend the order of the lower Court. I order that the wife be paid Rs. 50/- as her allowance and each child Rs. 25/- per month as allowance. In view of the circumstances of the case, parties 'should bear their own costs. Revision partly allowed.