Bhanudas Kondiba Kuchekar Vs Smt. Meera Bhanudas Kuchekar

mpt

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.213 of 1999

¶6

 Shri Bhanudas Kondiba Kuchekar .. Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

 Sou Meera Bhanudas Kuchekar & ors. .. Respondents

¶9

 Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the
 applicant.

¶10

 None present for respnodent nos.1 and 2.

¶11

 Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh APP for the State.

¶12

 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J

¶13

 DATED : 26th February 2008

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. Heard.

¶16

 2. This revision application is directed
 against the judgement and order dated 28th March 1999
 of the Family Court no.5, Pune, directing the
 petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.250/- to the
 respondent no.1 wife and Rs.250/- to the respondent

¶17

¶18

 no.2, the son of the applicant.

¶19

 3. Respondent no.1 is the wife of the
 petitioner and respondent no.2 is their son.
 Respondent no.1 for herself and as mother guardian of
 the respondent no.2, filed an application u/s.125 of
 the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance
 against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the
 application interalia contending that respondent no.1
 was not his legally wedded wife and the respondent
 no.2 was not his son. Therefore the petitioner not
 liable to pay any maintenance to the respondents.
 The Family Court, after considering the evidence
 adduced by the parties held that the respondent no.1
 had proved that she was the legally wedded wife of
 the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was her son
 born from the petitioner. The Family Court further
 held that the petitioner had failed and neglected to
 maintain the respondents, and directed the petitioner
 to pay a maintenance of Rs.250/- per month to the
 respondent no.1 and Rs.250/- per month to the
 respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by the said order,
 the petitioner has approached this court in revision.

¶20

 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
 that the petitioner was already married.
 Consequently, the marriage between the petitioner and

¶21

¶22

 the respondent no.1 was not legal and the respondent

¶23

 no.1 was not entitled to any maintenance. Perusal of
 the revision petition and grounds of challenge taken
 therein shows that the petitioner has not taken up
 the ground that petitioner was already married and
 had a first wife living when he married the
 respondent no.1. In the revision memo, petitioner
 has not taken a ground that the marriage between him
 and the respondent no.1 was not valid on account of
 he having the first wife living. In the absence of
 any ground in the revision petition to that effect,
 the applicant cannot be allowed to raise this
 contention for the first time at the hearing. The
 contention is accordingly rejected.

¶24

 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not
 contend that there was no marriage between petitioner
 and respondent no.1. His only contention was that
 the marriage was not valid, the respondent no.1 being
 the second wife. Therefore, the finding recorded by
 the Family Court that respondent no.1 was the legally
 wedded wife of the petitioner cannot be impugned.
 The trial court has considered the evidence on record
 has considered the fact that the petitioner had
 purchased for the respondent no.1 a mangalsutra with
 black beeds, which is an ornament customarily given
 by the husband to the wife at the time of marriage

¶25

¶26

 for his conclusion. No explanation was offered by
 the petitioner why he purchased the mangalsutra for
 the respondent no.1 and how the respondent no.1 came
 in possession of the receipt of the purchase of
 mangalsutra.

¶27

 6. The finding recorded by the trial court that
 the respondent no.1 was not the legally wedded wife
 is based on appreciation of evidence and no
 perversity in the said finding is seen. In the
 circumstances the finding that the respondent no.1
 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner needs
 to be confirmed.

¶28

 7. Marriage between petitioner and respondent
 no.1 took place at Alandi in April 1991. Respondent
 no.2 was born on 17th March 1993 i.e. after 280 days
 of the marriage. Respondent no.2 is therefore
 presumed to be the son of the petitioner. The
 finding recorded by the trial court is based on
 appreciation of evidence as well as on the statutory
 presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act.
 In the circumstances, the finding that the respondent
 no.2 is the son of petitioner is also confirmed.

¶29

 8. No arguments were advanced, and rightly so,
 regarding the quantum of maintenance.

¶30

¶31

 9. In the circumstances, there is no merit in

¶32

 the revision application which is hereby dismissed

¶33

 with costs.

¶34

 10. Rule is discharged with costs.

¶35

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Bhanudas Kondiba Kuchekar v. Smt. Meera Bhanudas Kuchekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanudas Kondiba Kuchekar v. Smt. Meera Bhanudas Kuchekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Raghunath Bhalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manikrao Mahadev Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh @ Rajan Ramniklal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ansar Ahmed Mohd. Abbas Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Nandalal Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Shripad Deshpande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra