JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. Instant appeal has been filed u/S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the ld. Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur in Execution Case No. 7/2007. 2. The present matrimonial dispute has a chequered history but brief facts which are relevant for the present purpose are that their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs and from this wedlock, a girl child was born on 10.08.1999. It was unfortunate that because of some misunderstanding between the spouse, matrimonial harmony could not prolonged any more and the appellant-husband filed application for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which came to be dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 05.09.2003 and that came to be challenged by the appellant-husband u/S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2317/2003 and that came to be decided by the Division Bench of this court on certain terms & conditions vide order dated 17.04.2007. Appeal No. 2317/2003 and that came to be decided by the Division Bench of this court on certain terms & conditions vide order dated 17.04.2007. It will be appropriate to quote the terms & conditions, on which the appeal preferred by the appellant came to be decided by Division Bench of this court, which read ad infra:- ^^izdj.k ds lexz y{; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo'ks"kr% bl rF; dks n`f"Vx.k j[krs gq, fd vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ;k ekpZ] 2000 ls vyx&vyx jg jgs gSa rFkk muds lEcU/k bl lhek rd fcxM+ pqds gSa fd mudk lkFk&lkFk jgdj oSokfgd thou O;rhr djus dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gS] vr% ge bl vihy dks fuEu izdkj l'krZ fuLrkfjr djrs gSa%& 1- ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; dze&2] t;iqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 5-9-2003 fujLr fd, tkrs gSa rFkk vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ;k ds e/; gq, fookg fnukad 26-9-1998 dks fo?kfVr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gSA 2- vihykFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og 4]00]000@& :i;s ¼v{kjs pkj yk[k½ dqekjh gf"kZrk ds uke cSad esa fQDl fMikWftV tfj;s laj{kd Jherh fu'kk HkkfV;k tek djk;sxk rFkk ijekusaV ,fyeuh ds :i esa 3]00]000@& :i;s v{kjs rhu yk[k Jherh fu'kk HkkfV;k dks vnk djsxkA 3- vihykFkhZ dks dqekjh gf"kZrk ds uke mDr jkf'k cSad esa fQDl fMikZftV djkus ,oa izR;FkhZ dks mijksDrkuqlkj ijekusaV ,fyeuh jkf'k vnk djus ds fy, rhu ekg dk le; iznku fd;k tkrk gS] ;fn mDr fu;r vof/k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk jkf'k fQDl fMikWftV o vnk ugha dh tkrh gS rks ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; dze&2] t;iqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 5-9-2003 Lor% gh izHkkoh gks tkosaxs ,oa vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ ds e/; gq, fookg dks fo[kf.Mr djus dk tks funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS og Lor% gh fujLr le>k tkosxkA 4- vihy dk O;; i{kdkj Lo;a viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA^^ 3. Indisputably, the appellant-husband did not comply with the terms & conditions of order dated 17.04.2007 but during pendency of D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2317/2003, the respondent-wife filed application u/S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and after hearing the parties that came to be decided vide order dated 13.07.2005 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards interim maintenance which could take care of respondent-wife and their school going daughter Miss Harshita Bhatia for her upbringing & education. 4. 4. The appellant-husband thereafter preferred D.B.Civil Review Petition No. 31/2005 for recalling of the order of maintenance passed by the Division Bench of this court dated 13.07.2005 and that came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2006 which was further challenged by the appellant-husband by filing SLP(Civil) No. 9581/2006 before the Apex Court and that came to be decided after hearing the parties vide order dated 19.10.2006, taking into consideration the entire material, considered it appropriate to modify & award interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month from date of filing of the original application i.e. 09.02.2005. 5. When the appellant failed to pay interim maintenance in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.10.2006, the respondent-wife filed application for execution of the interim maintenance before the ld.Executing Court and the present appellant raised cross objection inter-alia that since the order of interim maintenance has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in pending appeal u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and there is no judgment or order passed by the Family Court, as such, the execution application filed by the respondent-wife claiming maintenance in terms of order of this court was not maintainable and also prayed that u/S. 28A of the Act execution can be of the judgment or order of the court i.e. Family Court and the very execution petition was not maintainable. 6. The ld. Executing Court after hearing the parties overruled such objection regarding its jurisdiction and maintainability and finally passed the order impugned dated 09.04.2009 awarding time to make payment in terms of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the interim maintenance to which the respondent was entitled for vide order dated 19.10.2006. It is not disputed between the parties that in terms of order of the ld.Executing Court dated 09.04.2009, payment of interim maintenance has been made by the appellant to the satisfaction of the respondent and even the respondent-wife has informed to this court that nothing is due to be paid towards maintenance to which the respondent was entitled for after modification made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.10.2006 and according to the respondent in the light of change in circumstances, which has come on record, the present appeal has become infructuous. 7. 7. The appellant, present in person, submits that the respondent-wife has misled this court at the time of passing of original order of maintenance by this court dated 13.07.2005 and has not placed documentary evidence on record to show that she was in employment and had her own source of income and apart from it she has played fraud and the court should take cognizance and appropriate action against her. 8. The appellant, present in person, further submits that he was always willing to settle the matrimonial dispute but to his dismay, it could not have been settled and at least on the basis of material, which he had placed on record clearly indicates that the respondent-wife had sufficient source of income and was earlier working as Mahila Para-Teacher and presently working as Prabodhak and if these facts would have been on record, certainly she was not entitled for maintenance from the appellant-husband and according to him what is being paid by him towards maintenance under order of this court, deserves to be adjusted against permanent settlement of their matrimonial dispute. The appellant, further submits that u/S.28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, the ld.Family Court has jurisdiction to get the judgment & order of the court executed and the order which has been passed by the High Court on an application filed by the respondent u/S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance vide order dated 13.07.2005, which came to be further modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.10.2006, at least could not be executable by the ld.Family Court and the ld.Executing Court has committed error in passing order impugned on the execution petition filed at the instance of the respondent-wife dated 09.04.2009. 9. 9. We have heard appellant, present in person and also counsel for the respondent and we find that the appellant was under obligation to pay towards maintenance in terms of final order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.10.2006 and what should be the mode for execution may not be that relevant after it has been paid in full and nothing remains due and we do not find any justification to examine technical objections on merits in the instant appeal, preferred by the appellant-husband u/S.19 of the ld.Family Courts Act and for good number of times, we put question to him as to what further needs to be examined, however, he has personal grievances against the respondent-wife, but we do not find any justification and substance to consider the same in the present appeal more so when the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the order of maintenance vide order dated 19.10.2006 has been finally carried out by the appellant and we do find substance in the submission made by counsel for the respondent-wife that nothing further survives to be examined in the instant appeal. 10. As regards submission made by appellant that the documentary evidence which he has now placed on record to show that the respondent-wife is employed and has an independent source of income which she concealed from this court, the order of maintenance passed by the court dated 13.07.2005, even if modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.10.2006, still he was not under obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent for the reason that the respondent concealed her source of income. 11. In our considered opinion, the submission made is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that once the issue has been decided regarding maintenance, which the respondent claimed after passing order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.10.2006, it is not open for the parties to question the same and it remains no more res integra for our consideration and what has been contended by the appellant, deserves outright rejection. 12. Consequently, the present appeal is wholly without substance, accordingly stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Appeal dismissed.