1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 2007 Ram s/o Timma Bandgar, age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Sattardharwadi, Tq.Ausa, District Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Sangita w/o Rajendra Kawathe, age: 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o Malkonji, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. 2 Rajendra s/o Baburao Kawathe, age: 36 years, Occ: Agri. & Service, R/o Malkonji, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. Respondents Mr.D.R.Bhadekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Bhore, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 Appellant is raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by III Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2005 decided on 21.07.2006. 2 Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.30/2001 claiming maintenance from husband original defendant no.1 Rajendra Baburao Kavthe. It was also requested by the plaintiff that charge 2 in respect of maintenance amount shall be kept on the property owned and possessed by defendant no.1. Suit was presented on 06.02.2001. During continuance of suit, husband-defendant no.1 transferred the agricultural property owned by him in favour of defendant no.2 on 13.07.2001. The purchaser, defendant no.2 was, therefore, required to be added as party defendant. 3 Defence of purchaser – defendant no.2 is that he is bona fide purchaser and charge in respect of payment of maintenance allowance cannot be kept on the property purchased by him. 4 The trial Court, while decreeing the suit partly, directed defendant no.1 to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to plaintiff-wife. Whereas, prayer made by the plaintiff for keeping charge on the property transferred in the name of defendant no.2, was rejected by the trial Court. 5 Original plaintiff presented an appeal raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, being Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2005. The husband-defendant no.1 also preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.90/2006. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by III Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur, by judgment and order dated 21.07.2006, who was pleased to allow the appeal filed by plaintiff-wife and directed that the charge in respect of payment of maintenance allowance be kept on the property purchased by defendant no.2. The appeal filed by husband – defendant no.1 came to be dismissed. 6 It is the contention of learned Counsel for appellant – original 3 defendant no.2 that the transaction of sale is bona fide one and purchaser has no notice in respect of right or entitlement of original plaintiff. The first appellate Court has not taken into consideration all relevant aspects and allowed the appeal presented by original plaintiff and directed creation of charge in respect of payment of maintenance allowance against the property purchased by appellant – defendant no.2. 7 I have perused the judgment delivered by first appellate Court. It is to be noted that suit was presented by the plaintiff on 06.02.2001, whereas defendant no.1 – husband has transferred the property owned by him by executing a sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 on 13.07.2001. The property was transferred in favour of defendant no.2 only to defeat rights of wife. The rights accrued to the wife to receive maintenance allowance are tried to be defeated by such measures. The view adopted by first appellate Court is correct and does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 8 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of this, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa5307