1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11011 OF 2005 Atmaram s/o Paraji Pavde ...Appellant Versus Shobha w/o Atmaram Pavde and others ...Respondents ..... Shri S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for the appellant ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2 This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2001 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Parbhani on 24.9.2003 whereby the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No. 72 of 1996 by the learned C.J.J.D. 2 Gangakhed, was confirmed. 3 The respondent-plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 72 of 1996 seeking maintenance allowance from defendant No.1 i.e. Present appellant. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangakhed framed necessary issues and held that the wife-original plaintiff No.1 is entitled for Rs.500/- and the present appellant was directed to pay Rs.500/- towards maintenance to wife and Rs.200/- to original plaintiff No.2. The said amount was directed to be paid from the date of filing of suit. 4 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 2000 of 2001 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court except that the present appellant was directed to pay maintenance amount w.e.f. 18.7.1999. Hence, this Second Appeal. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent wife is not entitled for maintenance since she is working as Anganwadi Karyakarta and she is earning Rs.2000/- p.m. Learned counsel further submits that he has filed civil application in this second 3 appeal bringing this fact on record. On the specific query, learned counsel concedes that this ground was not taken either before the trial court or before the lower appellate court and for the first time this point is being raised before this Court. 6 On careful perusal of the findings of the courts below, I find that the courts below have examined all aspects of the matter and both the courts have held that the respondents are entitled for maintenance. In my considered view, viewed from any angle, second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the wife is earning Rs.2000/- p.m. was not canvassed before the courts below, therefore, it is not possible to consider this point in this second appeal at this stage. Second appeal is dismissed summarily. 7. In view of dismissal of second, civil application No.11011 of 2005 does not survive and the same is disposed of. *****