R. S. A. No. 791 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 791 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 16, 2011 Sunita .... Appellant Vs. Sandeep Singh alias Sandeep .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Sunita, who was successful in the trial court, but has been partly unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, has come up by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant is wife of defendant-respondent Sandeep Singh alias Sandeep. It appears that relations between the parties are strained. The plaintiff has been granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month in other proceedings, as submitted by counsel for the appellant. In the instant suit, the plaintiff sought to create charge on 94 kanals 02 marlas land of the defendant, so as to protect and secure the plaintiff's right to R. S. A. No. 791 of 2011 2 maintenance. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, lower appellate court has modified judgment and decree of the trial court by creating charge on 16 kanals land only, out of the share of the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the defendant-respondent wants to alienate the suit land. However, the defendant-respondent, being owner of the suit land, cannot be injuncted from alienating the same, except to the extent of protecting and securing the right of plaintiff to maintenance. The said right has been duly secured by the lower appellate court by creating charge on 16 kanals land of the defendant. Income from 16 kanals land cannot be said to be less than Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Thus, right of maintenance claimed by the plaintiff stands duly secured and protected by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No undue embargo can be imposed on the right of defendant-respondent to alienate his remaining land. The instant appeal is result of simply the strained relations between the parties. Otherwise, grievance of the plaintiff-appellant stands duly redressed and her right to maintenance has been protected by the lower appellate court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second R. S. A. No. 791 of 2011 3 appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 16, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE