RSA No.308 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA No.308 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Jarnail Singh .........Appellant Vs. Gurjit Kaur @ Satnam Kaur .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI : Present:- Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.K.S.Chawla, Advocate, for the respondent ---- M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL) : This is a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree, passed by the Courts below, in a suit for maintenance filed by the respondent-palintiff Gurjit Kaur wife of deceased son of defendant-appellant, vide judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court dated 26.8.2008. The suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed for maintenance for a sum of Rs.50,000/-P.A., creating a charge on the entire land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas in the name of defendant- appellant and a restraint order was passed against the defendant-appellant, directing him not to alienate the said property by way of sale, mortgage or gift, in favour of any person. The lower Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree, holding that the charge on property of 2 killas i.e. 16 kanals of the land, for securing the maintenance, granted to the plaintiff-respondent, is sufficient. The Courts below have held as a finding of fact that the plaintiff has got a right to get maintenance by creating charge over the suit property to the extent as held by the lower Appellate Court. The said finding of fact has been arrived at on fair RSA No.308 of 2010 -2- appreciation of evidence, produced before the trial Court. An attempt was also made by this Court for getting the matter amicably settled, by issuing certain directions to the appellant. On 8.11.2010 a sum of Rs.50,000/-was paid against the huge arrears of maintenance of more than two lakhs rupees. There is no ground made out for arriving at a different conclusion than the arrived at, by the Courts below, regarding the rights of maintenance of plaintiff-respondent, who is a widow looking after a minor child. No substantial question of law is involved warranting interference in the second appeal, in the exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC. Dismissed. It is not out of place to observe that in compliance to the interim direction issued by this Court to the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance by paying, at least, part of the amount due, no amount has been paid by the defendant-appellant. Though this is not the sole ground for dismissing the appeal as on merits. I am of the considered opinion that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below, determining the liability of the appellant, does not warrant any interference. Execution proceedings pending before the lower Court may continue. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE 1.3.2011 akm