RSA No.3841 of 2004 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3841 of 2004 Date of decision: February 27, 2008. Purshotam Dass ...Appellant v. Meena Kumari ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K. Sud, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – defendant against whom a suit for recovery of Rs.54,000/- as arrears of maintenance pendente-lite for the period from 3.8.1993 to 2.8.1996, filed by the respondent – wife, has been decreed along with cost by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhatinda and the said judgment and decree have been further upheld by the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.5.2004. Both the courts have concurrently held that no maintenance was paid to the respondent – wife for the above stated period. In fact, the appellant himself has not disputed non-payment thereof. He, however, has RSA No.3841 of 2004 -: 2 :- been contesting the respondent's entitlement on the ground that she had treated him and his family with 'cruelty', therefore, making herself dis- entitled for maintenance. He also claimed that he had no sufficient means to pay the maintenance. In support of his above stated first plea, the appellant relied upon a judgment and decree dated 3.6.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda whereby the respondent was held guilty of committing 'cruelty' towards him as also of 'deserting' him for insufficient cause. Vide a separate judgment of even date passed in FAO No.117- M of 1996, the matrimonial appeal preferred by the respondent – wife has been allowed and both the afore-stated findings have been set aside. Otherwise also, once the respondent – wife has been granted maintenance by a court of competent jurisdiction, the consequential recovery thereof cannot be denied on these flimsy grounds. There being a concurrent finding of fact, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Appeal which is accordingly and for the detailed reasons assigned in the judgment passed separately in the matrimonial appeal referred to above, is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. February 27, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge