1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.186 OF 2010. Narayan Dada Chaudhari and another ... Appellants. Versus Sau.Rukmini Sahebrao Chaudhari and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.R.Karpe, advocatefor the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 27.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appeal is by the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for simpliciter injunction restraining the defendant 2 from interfering in the possession. The defendant also filed a counter claim seeking injunction against the plaintiffs or in alternative possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the counter claim filed by the plaintiffs for possession. The original plaintiffs preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal and modified the decree of possession granted in favour of the defendants and clamped injunction against the plaintiffs from interfering in possession of the defendant No.1 holding that even if intermittently the possession was with the plaintiffs, it was on behalf of the defendant No. 1. 2. Mr.Sonpethkar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the property was owned by the appellant No.1 i.e. the father-in-law of the defendant No.1. The appellant No.1 was not under obligation or duty to maintain the daughter-in-law, more particularly when the plaintiff No.1 - husband was alive and as such 3 even if the property is said to be transferred in the name of the defendant No.1 for maintenance, still, the same would not be in consonance with the legal provision inasmuch as the same is without any registered instrument. 3. Per contra, Mr.Karpe, learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the property was transferred to the defendant No.1, pursuant to the maintenance. Both the Courts considered this aspect and even have considered the admissions given by the plaintiff No.1 in his deposition, wherein, it was admitted by him that warrant of arrest was issued against the plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.2 was arrested in maintenance proceedings and there was talk of compromise between them and some amount was due and as such the said property was transferred in name of defendant No.1. Mr.Karpe, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Smt.Gulwant Kaur and another Vs. Mohinder Singh and others" AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2251. So also the judgment of this Court in a case of "Nathu Bakaram Nimkar and others Vs. Yamunabai @ Gunabai 4 Bakaram Nimkar and another" 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 267, which lays down that it is the moral duty of the father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law, if his son is not in a position to maintain her. In the present case, taking into account, the admissions given by the plaintiff No.1, it is manifest that plaintiff No.2 was arrested as he was not in a position to pay the maintenance amount and pursuant thereto the plaintiff No.1 transferred the said property. 4. In light of these facts, no substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa18610 5