RSA 133 of 2009 30.3.2009 Present: Mr. G.R.Palsra, counsel for the appellant. The husband who is the appellant in this Court has suffered a decree of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. A sum of Rs.600/- per month has been directed by the learned trial Court to be awarded to the respondent, who had filed the petition as an indigent person. The husband filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Mandi which appeal was dismissed after a detailed consideration. The Courts below have considered that the appellant was proceeded ex parte on 3.6.2004 and nobody appeared on his behalf. The reasonable cause for non appearance was also not proved on the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the -2- appellant has urged a number of grounds in support of his appeal, primarily that the Courts below were incorrect on relying upon the ex parte evidence and that the evidence of respondent and PW-2 Kushal Chand has been misread. I find that the judgments of both the courts below are complete and deal with every aspect of the matter. Both the Courts having concurrently found against the appellant, I do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law which requires determination by this Court. This appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand dismissed. March 30, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.