1 925.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 603 OF 1999 1. Ashruba S/o. Govind Satpute, age 50 years, occu. Agri., R/o. Dhangarpura, Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed. 2. Eknath S/o. Govind Satpute, age 45 years, occu. and R/o. As above. 3. Bapu S/o. Govind Satpute, age 43 years, occu. and R/o. As above. 4. Smt. Nabhabai D/o. Govind Satpute age 37 years, occu. and R/o. As above. 5. Smt. Chhababai D/o. Govind Satpute, age 35 years, occu. and R/o. As above. ...Petitioners Versus Indrabai W/o. Yadav Satpute, age 65 years, occu. Agri., R/o. Dhangarpura Beed, at present residing at village Pachegaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. ...Respondent ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. V.D. Salunke … CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2025 2025:BHC-AUG:36529 2 925.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, for the appellants. Perused the impugned orders and record. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, for the appellants vehemently argued that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are illegal and improper. Learned Courts below have not considered the financial condition of the appellants and erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the said judgments and orders are liable to be set aside. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgments and orders as well as the record, at the outset, it appears that in the year 1990, the respondent filed suit for enhancement of maintenance. Learned Trial Court dealt with the evidence in detail in paragraph no. 12 and held that the appellants/defendants have the earning and financial capacity to pay maintenance and thereby partly allowed the suit and directed the appellants to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent from the date of institution of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred a First Appeal. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the evidence, the Commissioner's report (Exh. 21), documents and record, 3 925.odt in paragraph 17, has held that the appellants/defendants have sufficient means of income to pay maintenance. In paragraph 18, the Court also held that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference; hence, it dismissed the appeal. 5. I have also gone through the Court Commissioner report (Exhibit 21), which clearly indicates that the original respondents have the following properties : Sr. Nos. Survey Nos. Area Situated at 1. 127 35 Acres, 25 Gunthas Taraf Giram Beed 2. 140 19 Acres, 23 Gunthas Taraf Giram Beed It also emerges that the well exists in land Survey No.127. 6. It appears that the appellants have 55 Acres of agricultural land. This itself denotes that the appellants have sufficient means of income. 7. The learned Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, observed in their judgments that the appellant has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance to the respondent; consequently, the Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 400/-, and the Appellate Court confirmed the same. The learned Advocate failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments and orders. On the other hand, it seems that 4 925.odt the judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below are well- reasoned, and no interference is warranted in them. 8. As a result, I do not find merit in the Second Appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Records and proceedings should be sent back to the concerned Courts. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SPC