A. M. SAPRE, J, J. ( 1 ) IT is a second appeal filed by the defendant (husband) under Section 100 of C. P. Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30-6-2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhanpura, district-Mandsour in C. A. No. 16-Aof 2000, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 8-A of 1998, decided by Civil Judge. Class II. Bhanpura, on 16-10-2000. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is. whether appeal involves any substantial question of law ? ( 2 ) HEARD Shri L. R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, 1 find no merit in the appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid and hence, it merits dismissal in limine. ( 4 ) FACTS are simple. The plaintiff is legally married wife of defendant. She complains by filing a suit that defendant is threatening to marry with some other lady and hence, she wants injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit but first appellate court decreed granting an injunction against the defendant giving rise to filing of second appeal by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) I concur with the finding whereby the first appellate court has been pleased to grant injunction against the defendant-husband. If the plaintiff is held to be a legally married wife of the defendant then, she has every right to seek an injunction restraining her husband from breaking her marital ties except by due process of law. It is not in dispute that husband has not divorced the plaintiff, nor vis a versa and hence, the relationship of husband and wife continues to remain inter se parties. In such a finding being present, the wife is entitled to claim such prohibitory injunction, against her husband I, thus, do not find any flaw in the impugned finding of the first appellate court when he proceeded to grant injunction against the defendant restraining from remarrying with any other lady during subsistence of marriage inter se parties. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (husband) could not point out to me any infirmity in the impugned judgment except to contend that impugned judgment is not sustainable. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (husband) could not point out to me any infirmity in the impugned judgment except to contend that impugned judgment is not sustainable. No basis of any nature either on the strength of defence of the defendant taken in the written statement or from the statement of defendant could be pointed out. Secondly, defendant also couid not deny his status as husband of plaintiff. Under these circumstances, there remains nothing in favour of defendant to urge for upsetting the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) AS a consequence, the appeal has no merit. It fails and is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. .