SHAILA BALASAHEB KADAM Vs. BALASAHEB HINDURAO KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The issue that falls for consideration in the above Appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in refusing the maintenance to the Appellant herein on the basis that she is the second wife of Respondent No.1 herein. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has strongly argued that the provision of Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, clearly provides that even a second wife is entitled for maintenance. The learned counsel for the Appellant further pointed out that the Respondent has cheated the Appellant in not disclosing about the first marriage and as such the Appellant is being deprived of maintenance on account of such fraud committed by the Respondent. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of Smt. Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla vs. Manjeet Singh Chawla, 2008 AIR(Del) 7, has clearly held that a second wife is entitled to claim maintenance. The learned counsel has taken me through the said Judgment and pointed out that Delhi High Court has essentially come to such conclusion upon interpretation of the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned counsel as such submits that there are substantial questions of law which arise in the present Appeal which require consideration by this court.

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel pointed out that the learned trial Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellant is entitled for maintenance despite of the fact that she is the second wife of the Respondent. The learned counsel further pointed out that the lower Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge, holding that the second wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. The learned counsel for the Respondent further pointed out the reference in Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is with regard to the second marriages which was performed prior to 1956 when such second marriages were permissible. The learned counsel further points out that the Division Bench of this court in its judgment in the case of Mangala Bhivaji Lad vs. Dhondiba Rambhau Aher, 2010 3 BCR 827, has clearly held that second wife has no right to claim such maintenance. The learned counsel as such submits that there are no substantial questions of law which arise in the present appeal which requires consideration by this court. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that in case an interpretation as sought to be given by the learned counsel for the Respondents is accepted the provisions of Section 18(2) of the High Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, would be redundant.