1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2010 Prayagbai W/o Dadarao & Oths. .... APPELLANTS VERSUS Dadarao S/o Rangrao & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.V.Mandlik, Advocate for appellant. Mr. M.V.Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No. 1 & 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 23/08/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellant / original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for maintenance and declaration that defendant no. 3 is not the wife of defendant no. 1 with further declaration that defendant no. 2 is not the son of defendant no. 1. 2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are dead. Respondent no. 3 represents legal representatives of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The Trial Court has partly decreed the Suit of the plaintiff and directed defendant no. 1 to pay maintenance to plaintiff nos. 1 and 3, so 2 also with other reliefs. Only the claim of maintenance for the recovery of past maintenance from the year 1987-88, so also the declaration about the status of defendant nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. The appellate Court has partly allowed the Appeal, but did not grant the Decree in favour of plaintiff to the extent of status of defendant no. 3. Against that, the appellant approached this Court. 4. There is concurrent finding of fact in respect of status of defendant no. 3 by the Courts below holding that he is the son of defendant nos. 1 and 2. The said reasonings are based on evidence. No perversity is found in the said finding. No substantial question of law arises. As such, the present Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/ SA 303.2010 3