BALI TUKARAM YEVALE Vs. SAMBATABAI ALIAS RUKMINIBAI BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question to be decided in this second appeal is as to whether the wife (plaintiff) is entitled to claim maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when her marriage has been declared as void, as spouse of her husband (defendant No.1) was living at the time of her marriage with the plaintiff.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 is the husband of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.288 of 1977 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1800/- per annum and separate residence of two Khans for her from the suit property. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-wife that she was wedded to defendant No.1, her husband, and her marriage with defendant No.1 was solemnised about thirteen years ago from the date of filing of the suit. The said marriage was solemnised by following Hindu rituals and ceremonies. However, sometime after the marriage, defendant No.1 started harassing and ill treating her and also fell in love with one lady by name Vaijayantabai, due to which plaintiff was deserted by her husband defendant No.1 and she left the house of defendant No.1 and took shelter in the house of her parents at village Devwadi. The financial condition of plaintiff's parents was poor and, therefore, she filed the aforesaid suit for maintenance and separate possession. According to the plaintiff, income of defendant No.1 is about Rs.20,000/- per annum from agricultural lands and Rs.15,000/- from a tailoring shop, which he owns. Plaintiff, therefore, contended that defendant No.1's total income is Rs.35,000/- per annum and, she therefore, prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs,150/- per month.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.186 of 1980 in the Court of Extra Assistant Judge, Sangli, who by his judgment and decree dated 16.7.1982 partly allowed the said appeal and directed defendant No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1200/- per year to the plaintiff from defendant No.1. The aforesaid decision of Extra Assistant Judge, Sangli, is subject-matter of this second appeal before me.