1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 531 OF 2010 Sau. Kamalabai W/o Govindrao Lokhande .. APPELLANT VERSUS Gangasagar W/o Govindrao Lokhande & another .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri V.V. Tamke, Advocate for appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: This is an appeal filed by the defendant No. 2. The present respondent No. 1 had filed a Regular Suit for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act as against Govindrao i.e. original defendant No. 1 and to create charge of maintenance on landed property of defendant. The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant No. 1 i.e. Govindrao to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2 1,000/- per month to the plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Gangasagar. The charge of maintenance was also was kept on landed property. The defendant No. 1 did not challenge the said Judgment and decree. However, defendant No. 2 against whom no decree was passed, challenged the said order, by filing appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court held that the appellant therein i.e. original defendant No. 2 had no right or the title over the property in the name of defendant No. 1. Even no evidence was led by the defendant No. 2 to prove that she was first wife of defendant No. 1. Both the Courts have clamped the decree of maintenance in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1. There was no issue before the lower Appellate Court as to whether the defendant No.2 is first or second wife. In fact, defendant No. 2 ought not to have preferred any appeal. Any how the Appellate Court has considered the matter on its own merits and had dismissed the appeal. The Second Appeal is also filed by the defendant No. 2. 3 2. In such circumstances, I have heard Shri Tamke, learned Counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the Court below have not considered the evidence that the defendant No. 2 is legally wedded wife. The respondent No. 1, had accepted the decree passed by the Court below and had not filed any appeal. Even no application is filed by the respondent No. 1 for transportation, nor he has preferred any appeal to that effect. 3. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal. As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 531.10 SA