JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This regular second appeal stands filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Concurrent findings of fact are challenged by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit against the defendant (respondent herein), under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.5000/- per month as also separate residential accommodation. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of sum of Rs. 5000/- as monthly maintenance, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for separate residential accommodation till her life time, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is having sufficient source of income for her livelihood, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.” 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011, passed in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2008, titled as Smt. Gulabi Devi vs. Biri Singh, holding that plaintiff was already getting a sum of Rs.1100/- as maintenance in separate proceedings. 5. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed High Court of H.P. by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.7.2012, passed in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2011, titled as Smt. Gulabi Devi vs. Biri Singh. Hence the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal, more so, when no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 7. Undisputedly, for the last 35 years, plaintiff has been staying separately in the house of her father. Attempts made to bring her back to the matrimonial fold were only scuttled by her. In my considered view, Courts below rightly held that it is the plaintiff who is residing separately, without any justifiable cause from the company of her husband i.e. respondent herein. It could not be shown as to how such findings are perverse, false incorrect, erroneous or are not based on correct and complete appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record. It could not be shown as to how such findings are perverse, false incorrect, erroneous or are not based on correct and complete appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record. 8. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.