1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2010 Shri Rajendra s/o Uttam Patil .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sow. Lalita @ Lata Rajendra Patil & another .. RESPONDENTS Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the respondents. ===== CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 13 th JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1 This second appeal is filed by husband being aggrieved by the award of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are admittedly his wife and daughter and also past maintenance of 3 years prior to filing of the suit. Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Dhule in Special Civil Suit no. 124/2002 decided on 16-08-2005 is confirmed by the Ad-hoc District Judge -1, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal no. 104/2005 decided on 1-10-2009. 2 2 It is no more disputed that the present appellant / husband has filed HMP no. 70/2002 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Dhule for divorce on the ground of desertion by present respondent no. 1 / wife. However, said petition was dismissed. The appellant preferred appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal no. 104/2005 which was also dismissed by the Ad-hoc District Judge – 1, Dhule on 1-10-2009. It is the case of the appellant that he was deserted on 11-3-1993 by the respondents. When the suit was filed, respondent no. 2 was minor daughter living with her mother respondent no. 1. 3 Heard Adv Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.P. Brahme for the respondents. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the husband is held guilty of neglecting his wife and daughter and not providing maintenance to them. Since divorce petition is filed by husband, it cannot be said that husband was any more willing to take respondents to his house and maintain them. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has made any provision of maintenance of his wife and daughter, prior to filing of 3 the suit or thereafter. It is argued before this court that the suit filed by respondents on 28-11-2002 and past maintenance could not have been awarded. However, the law of limitation permits claiming of maintenance for previous three years. It is proved that the husband has not made any provision for maintenance of his wife and daughter during said previous three years. Salary of appellant is proved to be Rs.8,000/- per month and maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to respondent nos. 1 and 2 is granted. It is no doubt stated that the appellant has parents to maintain. 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Second appeal stands dismissed. 5 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. ( P. R. BORKAR J.) dyb/office/sa141.10.odt