Mrs Pushpabai Bhujangrao Yeole vs Bhujangrao Govindrao Yeole
2016 Latest Caselaw 3178 Bom

                                                                             CR.WP/148/2005
                                                 1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                               
                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 148 OF 2005




                                                       
     Mrs. Pushpabai Bhujangrao Yeole,
     Age 47 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o Tembhurni, Tq. Mahada,
     Dist. Solapur at present R/o at Patoda,




                                                      
     Tq. Patoda, District Beed.                                 ..Petitioner

     Versus

     Bhujangrao Govindrao Yeole,




                                            
     Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture
     R/o Tembhurni, Tq. Mahada,
                             
     Dist. Solapur.                                             ..Respondent

                                            ...
              Advocate for Petitioner : Smt. S.N.Jadhav h/f Shri N.L.Jadhav
                            
                     Advocate for Respondent : Shri S.K.Naikwade
                                            ...

                                   CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: June 23, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.1.2005,

by which the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by the

respondent and set aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated

7.6.2003 by which maintenance of Rs.400/- per month was granted to the

petitioner.

2. While admitting this petition, this Court refused interim relief.

3. I have heard Shri Jadhav and Shri Naikwade, learned Advocates for

the petitioner and the respondent at length.

CR.WP/148/2005

4. I find that the learned Magistrate had granted maintenance to the

petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner admittedly was

the second wife of the respondent and could not prove that the respondent

has divorced his first wife Dwarkabai. There is no reference to this aspect

by the learned Magistrate.

5. It was in the revision petition that the learned revisional Court noted

that the first wife Dwarkabai was issueless. The respondent, therefore,

wanted to marry another woman. He ill-treated Dwarkabai since she did

not give a consent to the second marriage and then he drove her out.

Thereafter, he married the present petitioner - Pushpabai on 2.6.1978.

The petitioner has not brought on record any evidence to indicate that

Dwarkabai was legally divorced by the respondent or that the petitioner was

made to believe that he had divorced her and on the basis of such

impression, she had married him.

6. Considering that the petitioner could not prove a legal / valid

marriage with the respondent that the revisional Court set aside the order

of the learned Magistrate and declined maintenance to the petitioner.

7. Considering the fact situation as above, I do not find that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge has committed any error in delivering the

impugned judgment. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore,

dismissed.

CR.WP/148/2005

8. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d