PANDHARINATH SAKHARAM THUBE Vs. SUREKHA PANDHARINATH THUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order dated 19th March, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989, partly allowing the Revision filed by the applicants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein ). By this order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the lower Court that the applicant Sulochana is not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, petitioner herein. However, as far as the issue of claim of maintenance of daughter of Sulochana viz. , applicant No. 1 was concerned, he remanded the matter back for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear in the lower Court on 19th April, 1991. However, this Court (Coram : M. G. Chaudhari, J.) vide its order dated 15th July 1991 granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer (c) and the matter is hanging fire since then.

(2.) FEW facts which are required to be narrated, are as follows :

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad, the applicants Ms. Surekha and Smt. Sulochana filed Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. The said Revision came to be partly allowed and the finding of the lower Court with respect to applicant No. 2 Sulochana that she was not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, was maintained. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, observed that there was no finding of the lower Court about the putative status of Pandharinath vis-a-vis Sulochana and parties should be given fresh chance to lead elaborate evidence on this point. He observed that even though Sulochana is held to be not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath that should not deprive illegitimate child viz. , Surekha from being awarded maintenance by Pandharinath. He observed that perusal of record showed that the parties did not foresee the situation in which Sulochana would be held as not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath and, therefore, the applicant Sulochana did not lead any evidence proving Surekha as illegitimate child of Pandharinath. Observing this, he remanded the matter back to the lower Court for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha according to law. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.