JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The description of the parties has been concealed in view of the sensitivity of the issue raised in this appeal. 2. This is appellant/plaintiff’s First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31-10- 2009 passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2007 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act, 1956”) has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described as per their description shown in the Civil Suit No. 12-A/2007 before the trial Court. Brief Facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that: 4. The plaintiff has filed suit before the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, (FTC), Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) for grant of maintenance under Section 18 of the Act, 1956 mainly contending that; A. The plaintiff’s marriage was solemnized with respondent as per Hindu rituals in the year 1975 and after marriage they were residing happily at village Kerta post Dharampur, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja and from their wedlock four children were born. It is also case of the plaintiff that for the past few years the defendant started beating and ill-treating her without any reason and the husband sent a letter to the wife's brother, invited him to his house. When the wife's brother went to the plaintiff's house on 17th April 2001, the defendant assaulted her and ousted her from her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the wife's brother had taken his sister to his house and since then plaintiff was residing in the house of her brother. B. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant while expelling the wife from his house, also took her personal jewelries and the defendant has categorically refused to provide any maintenance to his wife. The plaintiff is unable to do any strenuous work due to her age and is completely incapable of supporting herself whereas the defendant is having 10 acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 50,000/- per year after deducting all expenses. The plaintiff is unable to do any strenuous work due to her age and is completely incapable of supporting herself whereas the defendant is having 10 acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 50,000/- per year after deducting all expenses. Besides farming, he is also doing the business of fertilizers, rice, mahua, pulp, jaggery and other commodities, from which he earns income at least Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees) per year, as such the defendant has sufficient source of income and he is fully capable of giving monthly maintenance amount to the plaintiff, in fact it is legal responsibility of the husband. C. It is also case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surajpur on 21-05-2001 for grant of maintenance which is registered as Case No. 79/01 and thereafter the defendant had moved an application for divorce as per Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court in which the plaintiff submitted an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance and vide order dated 02-05-2002 the court below had directed the respondent to pay Rs. 500/- per month towards her maintenance till the final disposal of the case and Rs. 1000/- (one thousand rupees) for the expenses of the case, but the defendant had withdrawn the application before the learned trial Court and same was dismissed on 20-12-2002. It is also the case of plaintiff that and since there is no other source of income and the defendant has refused to pay the maintenance amount which has compelled the plaintiff to file suit for maintenance and has claimed Rs.5000/- per month towards maintenance. 5. The defendant has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff mainly contending that the plaintiff on 15-4-2001 Sunday at 12’ O clock at night switched off the lights in a planned manner and opened the gate and called xyz and started illicit relationship with him which shows the conduct of the plaintiff and the same incident was also seen by their sons, since the plaintiff was involved in unchastity, she is not entitled to get maintenance and accordingly it has been prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed six issues out of which issue Nos. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed six issues out of which issue Nos. 1 and 4 are relevant, therefore, they are extracted below. ^^1-& D;k okfnuh dks izfroknh us mis{kk iw.kZ O;ogkj dj ?kj ls fudky fn;k gS\ 4-& D;k okfnuh dk fdlh vU; O;fDr ij iq:"k ls xyr laca/k gS\** 7. To substantiate her case the plaintiff has exhibited documents ie., Panchnama (Ex.P/1) and has examined herself as PW/1 and Vishnu Praasad Jaiswal (PW/2) whereas defendant examined himself as DW/1, Ravishankar (DW/2), Vishnu (DW/3), Basantlal (DW/4) and Bhuvaneshwar (DW/5). 8. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit vide its order dated 31-10-2009. Learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has recorded its finding that the defendant witness DW/1 and his son (DW/2) in examination-in-chief have categorically stated that the plaintiff was involved in unchastity and no effective cross examination was made to rebut the same. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that since marriage of the plaintiff and defendant was solemnized in the year 1975 and after 25 years of the marriage no one will try to disturb the family, there is sufficient material on record regarding unchastity of the plaintiff and accordingly it has dismissed the suit for grant of maintenance. 9. Bering aggrieved with the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court, the plaintiff has preferred this First Appeal before this Court mainly contending that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence brought on record and the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the testimony of DW/1 and DW/2 as defendant No.2 is living with DW/1, as such, he is interested witness. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court should have considered the fact that the question of unchastity is not corroborated by any independent witness, as such it should not have been held that the plaintiff was involved in unchastity. It has also been contended that the charges which have been levelled against the plaintiff are suspicious and serious allegations regarding character of woman itself amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It has also been contended that the charges which have been levelled against the plaintiff are suspicious and serious allegations regarding character of woman itself amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. As such, plaintiff has sufficient reason to live separately from her husband, therefore, learned trial Court should have considered the application for grant of maintenance in favour of the plaintiff. 10. It has also been contended that since in the application filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, no ground of unchastity has been raised by the defendant and the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution, as such, the defendant only just not to pay the maintenance has raised ground of unchastity in the present proceeding which has not been proved by cogent evidence by the defendant. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and would pray for grant of maintenance. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that the learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly recorded its finding that the plaintiff was involved in unchastity and there was sufficient material on record as DW/1 and DW/2 in clear terms have deposed the evidence which remains unrebutted in the cross examination. He would further submit that plaintiff will not be entitled to receive any allowance for maintenance from the defendant as she is living in unchastity and to substantiate this sufficient evidence has been brought by the respondent/defendant, as such he would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court with utmost circumspection. 13. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is; “Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff was involved in unchastity as such, she is dis-entitled to get maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court?” 14. To appreciation this point, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under. “ 18. To appreciation this point, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under. “ 18. Maintenance of wife (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance - (a) If he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of willfully neglecting her; (b) If he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) If he is suffering from a virulent from of leprosy; (d) If he has any other wife living ; (e) If he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion ; (g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately; (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion”. 15. From perusal of Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, it is quite vivid that a Hindu wife shall not be entitled to residence and maintenance from her husband if she lives in unchastity or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. In the present case, the allegation levelled against the plaintiff is that she is involved in unchastity and it is settled position of law that the maintenance proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are civil proceedings although breach may lead to penal consequences. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, the standard is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal trials and cannot be used in civil disputes, including matrimonial and maintenance cases. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, the standard is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal trials and cannot be used in civil disputes, including matrimonial and maintenance cases. When the husband alleges that the wife is living in unchastity and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Unchastity/Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, unchastity/adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logistically to that conclusion. 16. In view of that parameters requires for determining the issue whether plaintiff was involved in unchastity or not, this Court has to examine the evidence led before the trial Court. The plaintiff was examined before the learned trial Court and in her examination-in-chief she has reiterated the stand taken by her in the plaint. The said witness in her cross examination has denied on 15-4-2001 and 16-4-2001 at mid night about 12’ O clock she made illicit relation with xyz but she has admitted that she had called her brother-in-law to her house and at that time her husband and son were there. She has also stated that three sons were not in the house. This witness has further stated that when two sons were not in the house, she told her husband to call her brother-in-law but he had refused, therefore, he asked his brother-in- law to search the third son. She has further admitted that she has not submitted any medical prescription regarding the injuries assaulted by her husband when she was subjected to assault by her husband and she has also not lodged any complaint against her husband in the police station. 17. PW/2 Vishnu Prasad who has supported the case of the plaintiff in the cross examination has admitted that he has not gone to Panchayat on 16-4-2001 at village Kerta as he was not aware about Panchayat. 17. PW/2 Vishnu Prasad who has supported the case of the plaintiff in the cross examination has admitted that he has not gone to Panchayat on 16-4-2001 at village Kerta as he was not aware about Panchayat. He has also admitted that the plaintiff before Panchayat has stated that she has illicit relation with xyz and she has love affair with him and she will be living with him only, but it is not in his knowledge as he was not in the Panchayat. 18. DW/1 in examination-in-chief has reiterated the stand taken by him in the written statement and contended that the plaintiff was having illicit relation with xyz and the same incident was seen by him and his son DW/2. This witness has also exhibited certificate given by the Panchayat which was conducted on 16-4-2001 wherein divorce papers were prepared in which incident of 15-4-2001 was mentioned. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff wherein nothing has been brought on record to rebut the same and he has also denied that on 16-4-2001 no Panchayat was conducted. 19. The other witness DW/2 who is son of plaintiff and defendant in examination-in-chief has stated that Panchayat was conducted on 16- 4-2001 wherein his mother and uncle were called in the Panchayat, but uncle xyz did not appear before the Panchayat and his mother has admitted her mistake and stated that she had illicit relation with xyz and she will be living with him only and thereafter, his maternal uncle had taken her mother with him and since then she is living with him. He has also stated that because of conduct of his mother, he was humiliated himself and when family members explained him then only he has not taken any drastic action. The said witness was cross examined by the plaintiff, but nothing has been brought on record to rebut the same averments made by the defendant witness. 20. The other witness DW/3 who has supported the case of defendant has stated in his examination-in-chief about conducting of Panchayat and Panchnama and about incident took place on 15-4-2001. The said witness was cross examined but this fact was not diluted even in the cross-examination. 20. The other witness DW/3 who has supported the case of defendant has stated in his examination-in-chief about conducting of Panchayat and Panchnama and about incident took place on 15-4-2001. The said witness was cross examined but this fact was not diluted even in the cross-examination. The other witness DW/4 who is brother of the defendant in examination-in-chief has reiterated the same story regarding conduction of Panchayat and conduct of the plaintiff and also the fact regarding conduction of Panchayat remains unrebutted. He has also denied in the cross-examination that he is making false allegation against the plaintiff and voluntarily stated that they have caught red-handed the plaintiff. He has also denied that Ex. P/1 was not written before him or no panchayat was conducted. 21. From the evidence brought on record, it is quite clear that there is circumstantial evidence which is sufficient to establish that the factum of unchastity on a balance of preponderance and probabilities to deceive the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff is living in unchastity after appreciation of evidence which cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that in the civil matter, sufficiency of evidence has to be examined and while inquiry into whether fact is proved the sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in context of standard of proof which in civil cases is by preponderance of probabilities, thus, it cannot be held that finding recorded by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity, illegality warranting interference by this Court, as such the point determined by this Court is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 22. Accordingly, the instant first appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 23. A decree be drawn up accordingly.