1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 23.11.2010. 1. This is defendant's appeal. The present Respondent had filed suit seeking maintenance against the present appellant under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant is running an Industry and he has a house property i.e. flat and his monthly income is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) per month, as such claimed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) p.m. The trial Court partly decreed the suit granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) p.m. The defendant prefers an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 2. The defendant has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr.Bagul, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that both the Courts have erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant treated the plaintiff with cruelty. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the said fact and when the said fact is not proved, the Courts below could not have passed a decree for maintenance. Mr.Bagul, learned counsel further contended that even on the point of quantum the Courts have accepted that there is no evidence on record regarding the actual earning of the appellant. The Industry which is stated has been closed and the appellant does not have any source of income. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff is earning amount from tuitions and this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. 4. Per contra, Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that plaintiff was treated with cruelty by the defendant and the said finding is a finding of fact which is arrived at by appreciation of evidence. Regarding quantum, Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the said workshop has been closed and the amount awarded is a reasonable amount of compensation. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff was treated with cruelty by the defendant. It has also come on record that the plaintiff has a workshop. Even if no actual income has been brought on record, still, when it is a fact that the defendant owns a workshop then naturally it would be presumed that he is earning income. It is the obligation of the defendant to maintain the plaintiff. The amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) awarded as maintenance is moderate sum. The view taken by the Courts below is possible and plausible view. 6. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. It is submitted that the appellant has deposited some amount in the trial Court, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount. 8. At this stage, Mr.Bagul, learned counsel for the appellant states that this Court had stayed the impugned judgment and decree. The same be continued for a period of four (4) weeks. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the said prayer. However, considering the fact that the stay was in operation, the stay order is continued for a period of four (4) weeks. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.23.11.2010. asp/office/sa434.10