SHANTILAL AWADHANA Vs. NIRMALADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent amended her written statement on 21.3.1991 and submitted that the second wife of the appellant, Sumanbai had given birth to a daughter in November, 1990. The appellant did not make any statement in his plaint/application to contradict the aforesaid statement in the written statement. During the trial, the appellant examined himself and closed his case. In his statement, he denied that the respondent had come to stay with him after passing of the decree dated 1.5.1984. He also denied that she stayed thereafter for 15 days. He further denied that after dismissal of the appeal, the respondent came to stay with him and stayed for about 20 days. He also denied that he had married again with Sumanbai of Nagpur or that he was living with that lady as her husband.

(2.) IN his cross -examination, he, however, admitted that after the decree dated 1.5.1984, he did not give any notice to the respondent to honour the decree, nor did he start proceedings in execution of the said decree. He, however, submitted that he had gone personally to fetch her, but she refused to come. He has, however, not mentioned this fact in his application. He was also not able to explain why the said fact was not mentioned in the application. He also asserted that he was not willing to live with the respondent now because she had gone back twice from his house. He has denied that he has got married to Sumanbai of Nagpur. The respondent examined herself as D.W. 1 and submitted that she had herself gone to live with the appellant after the decree dated 1.5.1984 and stayed with him for about 15 days. At that time, the appellant's mother was staying with them. She again claims to have gone back to him in October, 1985 and lived for about 20 days. According to her, she was sent back to her parents on the false pretext that her mother was sick. She asserted that the appellant had married again. Uttarrao (D. W. 2) is the brother of the respondent and had proved that he had taken her sister, the respondent, to the appellant in the month of June, 1984 and his sister had stayed with the appellant for about 15 days. He has also stated that after the decision of the High Court, he had again taken the respondent to the appellant and had stayed for about 20 -25 days. He also states that he had made enquiries at Nagpur and learnt that the appellant had married again. He names one S.S. Khare, who had participated in the marriage and who had passed on the information to him. He also asserts that the appellant had a daughter from his second wife Sumanbai. In his cross -examination, he has stated that the second marriage of the appellant was a PAT marriage. S.S. Khare (D.W. 2) has proved that marriage.