IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2038 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.6.2011 Subhash Bansal .. Appellant. v. Neena Bansal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The only ground on which notice of motion was issued in the present appeal was that some visiting rights be given to the appellant for meeting the children. Today, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that maintenance fixed for payment to the children has not been paid by the appellant-father for the last one year. In the execution filed by them, warrant of attachment has been issued for 7.6.2011. Considering the aforesaid development, I do not find any reason to grant the prayer made in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.6.2011 mk