R.S.A. No.1388 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1388 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2011 Ramesh Kumar ......Appellant Versus Sunita .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that the civil suit filed by Sunita wife of Ramesh Kumar-respondent-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) for maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) was decreed by the trial Court and her husband Ramesh Kumar-appellant-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”) was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.2400/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.1997 to 11.11.2002 and Rs.3200/- per month thereafter, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007. 2. Neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant felt satisfied with the impugned decision of the trial Court and preferred their respective appeals, which were dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007. 3. The appellant defendant-husband still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and instituted the present R.S.A. No.1388 of 2008(O&M) 2 regular second appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant defendant that since the respondent plaintiff-wife is also working as a Teacher, so, the maintenance awarded to her by the Courts below, is on the higher side, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 6. As is evident from the record that the trial Court, having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the entire relevant oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, partly decreed the suit and awarded the maintenance, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007, the operative part of which is, as under:- “As a sequel to my findings returned on the above said issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed with costs. Resultantly, a decree of recovery of maintenance allowance from 1.2.97 to 11.11.2002 @ Rs.2400/- p.m. and from the period from 12.11.02 onwards till the life time of the plaintiff @ Rs.3200/- p.m. is hereby passed. The plaintiff shall pay the ad valorem court fee on the arrears of one year of the maintenance starting from the day of filing of the present suit, within two months from today, failing which, her suit shall be deemed to be dismissed.” 7. Not only that, the first Appellate Court has upheld the decision of the trial court in regard to fixation of maintenance allowance. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant did not point out that how and in what manner, the maintenance allowance is exorbitant, as urged on his behalf. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. R.S.A. No.1388 of 2008(O&M) 3 9. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have rightly fixed the maintenance allowance vide impugned judgments and decrees. Such pure concurrent finding of facts based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well- articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 10. Meaning thereby, the entire crux revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688: 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 08, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE