1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2003 Sau. Chandani w/o Harishchandra Waghmode & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Taramati w/o Shivaji Kolekar & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri Sandeep Gorde Patil, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.B. Rohile, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 are served. Respondent nos. 2 and 6 dismissed as per courts order dt.30-11-2007. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 8 th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendants raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 356/1989 claiming enhancement in the amount of maintenance payable to her. Plaintiff is wife of one Shivaji Kolekar. She had instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 318/1969 claiming maintenance from her husband. Trial court decreed the suit and awarded maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.50/- per month in favour of the plaintiff. Charge in respect of payment of maintenance amount was 2 put over the disputed property which was owned by Shivaji. It further transpires that Shivaji during the intervening period transferred the property in favour of defendants. Plaintiff thus has presented the suit in 1989 claiming enhancement in the amount of maintenance. Defendants controverted the contentions raised in the plaint. They claimed that they were not aware of charge over the property as there was no such entry recorded in the revenue record. According to defendants, plaintiff shall have to secure order in respect of enhancement in the amount of maintenance payable in her favour from her husband Shivaji and she is not entitled to raise claim against defendant. 3 Trial court after considering the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the purchasers of the property are liable to pay enhanced maintenance. Trial court therefore granted decree in favour of the plaintiff directing enhancement in the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.175/- per month and has further directed creation of charge in respect of payment of maintenance over property purchased by defendants. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of defendants in Regular Civil Appeal no. 345/1992 which came to be heard and disposed of by 2 nd Additional District Judge, Osmanabad 3 who was pleased to dismiss the same. 4 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. It transpires from record that the defendants are the purchasers of the property which was subjected to charge in respect of payment of maintenance allowance as per decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 318/89. Purchasers are also from the same village. It cannot be claimed that defendants were unaware of existence of charge over the property. Apart from this, there is no denial of the fact that in earlier litigation charge was created and kept over the disputed property. The courts below have taken a reasonable view of the matter. Reasons recorded cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa515.03.odt