1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3149 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr.Dhage H.U., Advocate for appellant. ........ [CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 19th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.H.U. Dhage appearing for original defendant. The order of granting maintenance in favour of daughter-in-law by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Special Civil Suit No. 218/2007 is questioned by the appellant herein. 2. For the purpose of orders to be passed in the appeal, service upon the respondents or calling of Record is not desirable. The appeal is finally disposed of at the admission stage. 2 3. The learned Judge directed the defendant no.1 (appellant) to pay Rs. 18,000/- towards past maintenance for last three years preceding the suit at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and also to pay Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance to the original defendant no.1 from 05.12.2007. 4. The learned Judge was equipped in the form of revenue record of land Gat No. 421/2 and 174 which are enjoyed by the appellant herein, being father-in-law of the original plaintiff and same are not in dispute. The point which has been urged is, there was already partition between the appellant herein and his brother Bhausaheb and widow which could not be established. This point being too coined at this stage, it does not reflect surfacing in pleadings to give effect. No evidence, therefore, the submission being general in nature are ignored. 5. The fact remains, there is good yield of income to the father-in-law, it may be, he has to deploy labours, but it will not dilute income. The nature of crops which he is taking for the period 2002-2003 is wheat 3 and paddy, 7/12 extract of the land Gat No. 421/2 shows that, in the year 2002-2003 there was crops like paddy, cotton, grass. The income derived from the agricultural field was naturally more than Rs.5000/- per month. It can not be minimum income from the agricultural field. 6. Taking survey of the events, I do not find any error in granting of maintenance in favour of the plaintiff no.1. First appeal lacks merits, it is dismissed. No Costs. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE gas/fa3149.09