Dismissed
Ravindra Motiram Salve v. Sharda Ravindra Salve and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/618/2007
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 618 OF 2007
Ravindra Motiram Salve ..Petitioner
Vs.
Sharda Ravindra Salve and ors. ..Respondents
Mr. A.R. Shaikh for petitioner.
Mr. D.R. More, APP for State.
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.
Date : August 17, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shaikh the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Mr. More the learned APP appears for the
State.
2. The respondent no.1 had approached the learned
JMFC at Manmad in Maintenance Application No. 37 of
2000 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and prayed
for maintenance for herself and her minor son, present
respondent no.2. The learned Magistrate by his
judgment and order dated 1/4/2005 held that the
applicant no.1 - Sharada was not the legally wedded
:2:
wife of the present petitioner and, therefore, her
claim for maintenance was rejected. The learned
Magistrate further proceeded to hold that the
applicant no.2 - Kum. Akash was the illegitimate son
of the present petitioner and, therefore, he was
directed to pay an amount of Rs.300/- p.m. for the
maintenance of applicant no.2. This order came to be
challenged in Criminal Revision Application No.90 of
2005 and the same came to be dismissed by the learned
2nd Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon on
22/6/2006. Hence this petition which is filed almost
after nine months from the date of the order passed by
the Sessions Court.
3. It was the case of the applicant no.1 that she
was cohabiting with the present petitioner as his wife
and she was married to him on 22/7/1993 as per the
Buddha religion and from the said wedlock the
applicant no.2 was born on 9/9/1994. In defence the
present petitioner had contended that he was already
married with Subhadra on 21/5/1989 and he had not
married the applicant no.1-Sharada at any time. While
in the witness box the applicant no.1 stated that the
:3:
non-applicant maintained her for few days after they
were married and thereafter he started demanding cash
amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid for seeking
permanency in employment. She could not meet his
demand due to poverty and, therefore, the
non-applicant started ill-treating her mentally and
physically, including starvation. The non-applicant
also examined his first wife Subhadra as well as to
neighbours, namely, Rohidas Gangadhar Jogdand and
Kisan Pilaji Shinde, both of whom stated before the
trial court that the non-applicant was already
married. The learned Magistrate considered the
documentary evidence and more particularly the birth
extract from the register maintained (Exh.31) by the
Tahsildar and held that though the applicant no.1
could not be said to be a legally wedded wife of the
non-applicant but the applicant no.2 was the
illegitimate son born to applicant no.1 from the
non-applicant. This view has been upheld by the
Sessions Court.
4. There is no case made out to find fault with
the concurrent view taken by both the courts below
:4:
regarding the paternity of the original applicant no.2
and hence there is no case made out to cause
interference in this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution in the order directing maintenance amount
to be paid to the son.
5. Petition is rejected summarily.
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Ravindra Motiram Salve
Sharda Ravindra Salve
B.H. Marlapalle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court