IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3940 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision:03.12.2008 Pritpal Singh Bhullar .... Appellant versus Mrs. Karamjit Kaur & others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Aditya K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** AJAY TEWARI, J.(ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The respondent had filed a civil suit for maintenance and for the marriage expenses of respondent No.2. Both the Courts below found that the respondent No.1 was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Both the Courts below also found that the appellant was possessed of sufficient assets. The learned Trial Court ordered maintenance of Rs.500/- and, in appeal the Lower Appellate Court, while maintaining the maintenance also awarded an amount of Rs.1 lac for the marriage expenses of the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondents could not prove any income arising in the hands of the appellant who is 78 years old man. He further argued that the respondent No.1 was in any case is not entitled to maintenance since the marriage with RSA No.3940 of 2008(O&M) -2- her was repudiated by the appellant under customary law. With regard to the first point, it may be noticed that the Lower Appellate Court has found as a fact that the appellant sold some property worth Rs.16 lacs in the year 1999. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no sufficient means to pay the money to the respondents. As far as the argument of repudiation of marriage is concerned, both the Courts below found that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was filed by the respondents which was allowed and that had become final and in those proceedings the same plea of repudiation had been rejected by the Courts. Further, it has been found that apart from repudiation, the appellant also took a plea of some divorce decree dated 14.12.1974 which was never brought on record. Consequently, I find no merit in this case. I hold that the proposed questions of law do not arise in this appeal and dismiss the same. No costs. December 03, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE