CHANDAMMA Vs. MUKTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 16/ 2006 seeking maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband Hanmantharaya and also seeks creating charge on the suit property. THE marriage of 1st respondent with Hanumatharaya is evidently contracted during the subsistence of the valid marriage with the 1st wife who is the appellant No. 1. THE Trial Court has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and created charge on the suit property which is held to be the estate of deceased Hanumanthraya. Hence, this appeal by the defendants,

(2.) SRI Veeresh B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the ruling of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Ramprutapji Daga Vs. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga [(2005) SCCR 107] and decision of Bombya High Court in Shantaram Tukaram Patil and Another Vs. Smt. Dagubai Tukaram Pdiil and Another Vs. Smt. Dagubai Tukaram Patil and Others (AIR 1987 Bombay 182 to contend that even in the ease the 2nd marriage is held to be void. The 2nd wife is entitled to get maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) THE facts in Rameshchandra Daga's' case and in the cited decision of the Bombay High Court, the 2nd marriage prima- facie had taken place on the premise that the first wife has been divorced according to the customary practices of the community. THE 2nd wife entering into matrimony believing the fact of the divorce of the first. It is for that reason the Supreme Court in Rameshchandra Daga's case in para 22 has made the following observations: