SANGITABAI Vs. SANDIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V.C. Patil, advocate holding for Shri V.D. Patnoorkar, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. The applicant was required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Aurangabad, since according to her grievance she was not maintained by her husband, the present respondent.

(2.) ON being summoned, the respondent put his appearance and filed his written statement. The basic assertion on the part of the applicant that there was a marriage between her and the respondent on 12.4.2000 is stoutly denied by the respondent. He specifically asserted that at no point of time any marriage took place between the applicant and him.

(3.) THE learned counsel in order to buttress his point that, since there is a basic statement in her application that she is married to the respondent, that by itself is sufficient to claim maintenance, relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Nirmalbai W/o. Uttam Dhanai v. Uttam S/o. Rambhau Dhanai and anr., reported in : 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. 131. However, to me, the dictum of said reported case is not applicable in the given set of facts to the present case.