RAJU BHAGWAN GAWANDE Vs. RAJU GAWANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/ husband has challenged the order dated 11- 12-2002 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2002, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 26-3-2002 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. in misc. Crl. Case No. 101 of 2001 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the application is confirmed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the husband contended that the respondent/wife is the legally wedded wife of Chandrabhan raut (A. W. 2) and when the said marriage was still subsisting, the respondent/wife is not entitled to claim maintenance on the contention that she was- residing with the petitioner Raju as his wife and that he performed marriage with her about five years back prior to filing of the petition. He contended that the alleged marriage of respondents/wife is void and as such she is not entitled to claim maintenance. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of this Court in Indu Nimba Pawar Vs. Sumanbai Kadu Pawar, 1996 (2) Mh. LJ. 817 : 1996 (4) ALL MR 153.

(3.) Mr. Tathod, learned counsel, for the respondent/wife fully supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that the first husband of Baby, by name Chandrabhan raut, had given divorce to her and thereafter the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the temple of jholebaba. He contended that the evidence of mahadeo (P. W. 3) on record would indicate that he is the neighbour of the petitioner and the respondent/wife lives in his house as his wife. He contended that even Chandrabhan raut has also been examined and his evidence would reveal that he had given oral divorce to his wife Baby and the divorce-deed was written on a stamp paper. Thus, according to Mr. Tathod, the marriage of Baby with the petitioner/husband is perfectly legal and valid and if at all the petitioner husband wants that the said marriage should be declared as invalid, he can approach the Civil Court and get a declaration about the validity or otherwise of the marriage. He contended that strict proof is not required in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for granting maintenance on the ground that the wife is the legally wedded wife. He, therefore contended that there is no merit in the present application which is liable to be dismissed.