1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5269 OF 2000 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 561 OF 1999 Dashrath S/o Meghba Harijan (Kamble) .. Applicant Versus Laxmibai D/o Dashrath Harijan .. Respondent Shri S. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Applicant. The Sole respondent served - absent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in second appeal. The applicant is father of respondent Laxmibai who filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The second appeal also came to be dismissed and hence this review application. 2. The main grievance of the applicant is that, despite good merits, he was hit by decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court in favour of his daughter Laxmibai, who was then 2 minor and filed proceedings for maintenance through her mother a natural guardian. The trial Court was pleased to decree her claim at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The operative order reads as below : O R D E R 1. Suit is decreed with costs. The defendant do pay the maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- (Rs. Fifty only) p. m. to plaintiff minor Laxmibai from the date of suit i. e. 05.05.1990. 2. The charge of maintenance amount is kept on the landed properties i. e. (1) S. No. 48/A adm. 4 acres 6 Gts. and S. No. 149/A adm. 7 acres 39 Gts. situated at Halsi Tugaon. 3. Thus, it is seen that, maintenance order was passed in favour of minor Laxmibai. It is informed that now by this time she is employed and earning her livelihood. She is employed as Anganwadi teacher (Zilla Parishad). Still there is apprehension in the mind of the old defendant/father who is appellant that she would take advantage of said decree for recovery of maintenance of several months and also for the arrears due. Hence this review application came to be filed. 4. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant invited my attention to the provisions of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the order passed in second appeal. Upon consideration of record and after hearing the submissions, I do 3 not find any ground to review the earlier order of dismissal of second appeal. However, the parties are at liberty to take up this ground in any other proceeding for his just and rightful claim to dismiss the monthly maintenance allowance, since she has attained majority and the decree was passed in favour of minor Laxmibai, who being a daughter found dependent on the father. The father is now grew old and stated that, he has no source of income to provide further maintenance to the daughter who is now major and employed as Anganwadi teacher. With these observations, the review application stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09