SUBHASH POPATLAL SHAH Vs. LATA SUBHASH SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are being disposed by this common judgment as they arise from the same impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bombay, on 28/06/1991, in M. J. Petition No. 799 of 1989 and Petition No. 500 of 1989. The appellant-husband in both the appeals, Subhash Popatlal Shah, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the appellant" and the respondent-wife, Mrs. Lata Subhash Shah, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the respondent".

(2.) THE respondent filed M. J. Petition No. 799 of 1989 for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13 (1) (i); 13 (1) (ib) and 13 (2) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Petition No. 500 of 1989 for separate maintenance for herself and son Anand under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Family Court. Her case was that the marriage between herself and the appellant took place as per Hindu Vedic rites in the month of April, 1973 at Bombay whereafter she stayed with her husband at Pune and Mahabaleshwar. Thereafter she was brought by the appellant to Bombay and kept at her father's house where she has been staying. According to her, out of the wedlock a son by name Anand was born. Her contention was that the appellant was doing hotel business at Akola and after she was left at Bombay he used to send her money towards maintenance and after some time he stopped sending her money and performed a second marriage with one Rasila on 3/06/1975 about which she came to know in the year 1988 and as he was having sexual intercourse with another woman, she was constrained to file a petition for a decree for divorce or in the alternative for a decree for judicial separation. She also claimed maintenance for herself and Anand.

(3.) THE appellant resisted the marriage petition and his case as per the written statement was that the respondent was not at all known to him and that he had not married her in the year 1973 as claimed by her. He also denied having stayed with her at Pune and Mahabaleshwar and leaving her at Bombay at her father's house. He disputed the birth of Anand out of the lawful wedlock with the respondent. According to him, he was in service in a shop somewhere near the house of the respondent's father and taking advantage of that fact the respondent filed false cases against him claiming to be his wife. He also contested the respondent's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code raising a plea that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife and, therefore, he was not liable to maintain her and her son Anand.