1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 236/2004 ( Smt.Sarojdevi (Sarojini as described wrongly in first appeal) Mishrilal Hatthel VERSUS Mishrilal Chhotelal Hatthel (Dead), thr. l.R's 1) Sunil Mishrilal Hatthel & another ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Borkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 9 th AUGUST, 2007. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgments passed by the appellate Court on 08.01.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75/2001. The trial Court had, by a judgment dated 26.11.2001 granted a decree for maintenance allowance in favour of the appellant. The respondent was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance. In an appeal carried by the respondent, the first appellate Court, by the judgment dated 08.01.2004, allowed the appeal and held that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The appeal was allowed in its entirety and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Shri Borkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has died during 2 the pendency of this second appeal. Since the appellant had filed a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was a personal claim and the personal claim would die with the party who dies during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, by applying the principle Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona to this case, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the original defendant i.e. the husband of the appellant had also died after the hearing of the first appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE