1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.274 OF 2010 [KISAN RUPRAO GAIGOLE ..VS.. SAU. KUSUM KISAN GAIGOLE] AND SECOND APPEAL NO.275 OF 2010 [KISAN RUPRAO GAIGOLE ..VS.. SAU.KUSUM KISAN GAIGOLE] Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 8 th JULY, 2010 . Heard ShriSonbhadre, the learned counsel for the appellant. Since common question of facts arise in these appeals, they are heard together at the stage of admission and are decided by this common order. The appellant is the original defendant. Two suits were filed by his wife Kusum, one for maintenance and the other for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the expenditure of marriage of their daughter Deepali. The plaintiff and defendants were legally married and being Buddhists, Kusum was entitled to file suits for grant of maintenance and recovery of amount against her husband. It was the case of respondent/ Kusum that she has spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the marriage of their daughter Deepali and her brother and sister in law had advanced the loan of Rs.30,000/- each and her son Sachin 2 had advanced a hand loan of Rs.30,000/- after borrowing it from his employer. According to plaintiff Kusum the appellant had promised to repay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff which she had spent for the marriage of their daughter Deepali. The plaintiff also filed another suit for grant of monthly maintenance @ Rs.3500/- p.m. The appellant/ husband denied both the claims of respondent/wife and pleaded that the wife had not spent the amount for the marriage of the daughter. The appellant pleaded that the plaintiff had deserted him and after his retirement he was not having any income except the pension of Rs.3579/- p.m. He therefore, sought for the dismissal of both the suits. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record by separate judgments dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.3500/-, but partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.35000/- to the respondent wife towards expenses which she had incurred for their daughter Deepali's marriage. The first appellate court maintained the judgment and decree passed in the suit for recovery of amount spent for the marriage expenses, but reversed the findings recorded by the trial court in the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of maintenance. The first appellate court held on 3 appreciation of evidence on record that the appellant/ husband was liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the wife/ plaintiff from the date of the suit. The appellant was also directed to pay maintenance of Rs.800/- p.m. from June 2005 till the date of the suit. The findings recorded by the first appellate court in both these cases, are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The trial court in the suit for maintenance had wrongly dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court had rightly granted the maintenance to the wife @ Rs.1500/- p.m. as it was clear from the certificate exhibit 40 which was received from the Treasury Office that the monthly pension of the appellant was Rs.4249/-. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals, they are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.