LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-358

SHANKAR S/O. HONAJI DHULE Vs. LAHANUBAI

Decided On June 19, 2015
Shankar S/O. Honaji Dhule Appellant
V/S
Lahanubai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Misc. Application No.125/2001 which was pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Kalamnuri, District Hingoli and also the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No.1/2003 which was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hingoli. The original proceeding was filed for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by present respondent. Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The decision is challenged mainly on the ground that the present respondent was already married, she has issues from the husband and so it was not possible for her to marry with the present petitioner. It was also submitted that there is no convincing evidence on the so called marriage of respondent with the petitioner.

(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the evidence given by both the sides before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Respondent has examined herself to give evidence of marriage. She has examined the priest and other witnesses also who had attended the marriage. One of her witnesses Shivaji Paikrao is close relative of present petitioner and the suggestions given in cross examination to the present respondent by learned counsel for the present petitioner shows that it is suggested that daughter of Shivaji Paikrao is given in marriage to a son of present petitioner. This suggestion is admitted by the respondent. It is her case that as present petitioner had lost his wife, he had reached age of 65 years, he wanted support of somebody and so he decided to marry. It is her case that after solemnization of the marriage there was cohabitation for 4 to 5 months and thereafter she was driven out of her matrimonial house by the petitioner. There can be dispute only in respect of factum of marriage as the husband has not contended in the say that present respondent was already married and so she could not have married with him.