Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.5.2009 *** Dharam Pal .. Appellant VS. Yogesh Kumar .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate. for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal. Both the Courts below have held the defendant liable to pay the maintenance amount to the plaintiff, his minor son, living separately with his mother. Although the trial Court decreed the suit and awarded maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit besides directing him to pay the arrears of maintenance at the same rate for the last three years, after making deduction/ adjustment of Rs.300/- per month, received by the plaintiff as maintenance, as per orders passed in petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but the learned first appellate Court below modified the judgment and decree of the trial court by restricting the amount of maintenance and arrears thereof to Rs.3000/- per month. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no question of law warranting admission of instant appeal would arise for consideration. The appellant admittedly is the father of the plaintiff. It is his social obligation to maintain his child. It cannot be said that by paying meager amount of Rs.300/- per month, as Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 OF 2009 2 awarded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the appellant-father is left with no obligation towards the minor child living separately with his mother, in the civil suit for recovery filed by the latter. It stands proved on record that the appellant is an employee of State Government and getting handsome salary. Both the Courts below, thus, have rightly asked the appellant to pay the maintenance amount to the plaintiff. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 27,2009 Jiten