Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District judge/Respondent No, 1, whereby the learned Judge while reversing the finding of the learned trial Court, decreed the suit of the respondent for Maintenance for a period of one and half years from the date of Mstitution of the suit proceedings, period of "Iddat" at the rate of Rs, 2500/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has failed to bring on record any tangible evidence regarding the entitlement of the past maintenance granted by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the judgment impugned is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and not tenable in the eye of law.
2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any misreading and non-reading of the evidence in the judgment of the learned first appellate Court, whereby he granted the past maintenance far the last one and half years which stands established from the record of the ease. Therefore, the judgment of the learned first appellate Court is in line with the evidence available of record. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby repelled being pointless. This petition is dismissed having no merits.