Judgment : 1. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondent, who is the wife, has filed the suit against the appellant who is the husband, for the recovery of Rs.1,200 per month as maintenance. The defendant in the suit, who is the appellant herein, while admitting the relationship of husband and wife between him and the plaintiff, has disputed the quantum on the basis that he has no income to pay such huge amount per month. It is also his defence that since the plaintiff has voluntarily left his house, he has no legal obligation to maintain her, apart from the fact that he is not having any independent income. The Trial Court, after elaborate inquiry, has decided that the defendant should pay Rs.800 per month to the plaintiff as maintenance. As against the said judgment, the defendant filed First Appeal. The First Appellate Court has also confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court. The plaintiff also filed a Cross Appeal, since her claim of Rs.1200 was not considered and only a sum of Rs.800 per month was awarded. The First Appellate Court, while dismissing both the appeals of the defendant as well as the Cross Appeal by the plaintiff, has confirmed that the fixing of Rs.800 per month as maintenance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is valid in law. It is against, the said concurrent findings, of the Courts below, the defendant has filed the Second Appeal. The substantial question of law was framed as follows: “Whether the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence placed before them in view of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. 2. I have heard the contention of both sides. 3. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court would show that the appellant herein being the defendant in the suit as D.W.1 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that he owns a Kalyana Mandapam and Rs.40,000 to 50,000 is earned as profit. It is also his evidence in chief examination that he is having 6 to 7 acres of lands. Therefore, there is absolutely no wrong appreciation of evidence placed before both the Courts below. There is no question of law much less a substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. It is also his evidence in chief examination that he is having 6 to 7 acres of lands. Therefore, there is absolutely no wrong appreciation of evidence placed before both the Courts below. There is no question of law much less a substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. With the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The Cross Objection also dismissed. No costs.