1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 663 OF 2006 Bhimabai Dashrath Barve Appellant Versus Dashrath Mahadu Barve & others Respondents , advocate for the appellant. , advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 54/2005 by the 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 21-3-2006 whereby the first appellate court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 20-11-2004. 2 Plaintiff / appellant herein claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from defendant no. 1 under section 18 of the Hindu 2 Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Trial court after considering the rival contentions fixed the amount of maintenance payable by the defendant at the rate of Rs.700/- per month from the date of suit i.e. 27-3-2000. Decree passed by the trial court was subjected to appeal at the instance of original defendants in Regular Civil Appeal no. 54/2005 which came to be disposed of by the 3rd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar who was pleased to reduce the amount of maintenance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month. 3 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the judgment recorded by the first appellate court. Appellate has taken into consideration enhancement in the amount of maintenance payable by the respondents / defendants under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.700/- during pendency of the proceeding before the first appellate court. As the defendants are directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- per month under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order passed by the criminal court in summary proceeding is also required to be taken into account while fixing 3 the amount of maintenance payable under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The first appellate court has not committed any error in taking into account the amount which is ordered to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/sa663.06.odt