LAXMIBAI Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the appeal preferred by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009, passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Bidar in MC No. 4/2004, dissolving the marriage of appellant as well as respondent on the ground of nullity of marriage.

(2.) THE appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the grounds as urged in the appeal memorandum.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case presented before the trial Court that the respondent/husband has filed a petition before the trial Court seeking declaration that the marriage of the appellant herein with the respondent is null and void as it was performed during the subsistence of marriage of the respondent/husband with one Kasturibai in the year 1983, hence, under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and restraining the appellant herein from claiming arrears of maintenance in Misc. No. 5/2003. It was averred by the respondent/husband in the said petition that the plaintiffs/husband marriage was solemnized with Kastunbai in the year 1983 and they have got no issues. With the consent of said Kastunbai, the husband married with the present appellant. It is further contended that the wife has left the house on the ground of ill -treatment and resided with her parents house at Gadi Kushnoor and filed Misc. No. 6/1990 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The husband appeared in the said case and he denied the allegations made therein. He has also contended that the present appellant is his second wife. The learned JMFC Court Aurad has rejected the plea and order of maintenance of Rs. 500/ - per month was ordered on 23.11.1998. The husband has preferred the Revision Petition No. 4/1999 against the said order but the same was dismissed. Hence, the husband has preferred again Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2002 before this Court. This Court has directed the husband to pay the arrears of maintenance for six years. It is further contended that though the marriage was settled and the appellant is being the second wife and she is not entitled for maintenance and the said marriage was null and void under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and she has deserted the husband since 1990.