Dismissed¶23

Kalawati Ramkrishna Shende v. Ravindra Ramkrishna Shende and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026SA/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Second Appeal No.1 of 2025, decided 13.01.2026 by Rohit W. Joshi, J. Keywords: proof of registered Will; non-examination of attesting witness; identification of signature by witness's son; status of alleged second wife; presumption of marriage from longstanding association; void marriage during subsistence of first marriage; divorce of deceased from first wife dated 24.06.1999; burden of proving date of death of prior spouse and date of marriage; declaration suit between heirs; confirmation of concurrent findings; dismissal of Second Appeal for want of substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs, and the judgments and decrees of both courts below confirmed. ¶23

Kalawati Ramkrishna Shende vs Ravindra Ramkrishna Shende and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs, and the judgments and decrees of both courts below confirmed.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 03.03.1998 allegedly executed by late Ramkrishna was duly proved. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The Will dated 03.03.1998 is not proved: out of the two attesting witnesses, the one who was alive at the relevant time was not examined, and the evidence of the son of the other attesting witness was restricted only to identification of his father's signature. The courts below rightly so held.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Marriage of defendant No.1 with Ramkrishna can be legal only if solemnized after the demise of her first husband Haridas; the burden to prove the exact date of demise of Haridas, as well as the date of her alleged marriage with Ramkrishna, was squarely on defendant No.1, and she led no evidence on either.

¶18

Key takeaways

Ramkrishna obtained divorce from his first wife (mother of the plaintiffs) on 24.06.1999, i.e. after the date of execution of the Will in which defendant No.1 is referred to as his wife; therefore Ramkrishna married defendant No.1 while his first marriage was subsisting, and such marriage is void.ratio¶19
The learned courts below rightly granted declaration that defendant No.1 cannot claim to be legally wedded wife of deceased Ramkrishna.ratio¶22
No substantial question of law arises for consideration; the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal dismissed — concurrent decrees of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha (19.03.2016, Regular Civil Suit No.242 of 2009) and the District Judge, Wardha (29.02.2024, Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2016) confirmed — Will dated 03.03.1998, though a registered document, held not proved since the attesting witness who was alive was not examined, the evidence of the other attesting witness's son being confined to identification of signature — appellant, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased relying on long association and the Will describing her as wife, failed to prove the exact date of demise of her first husband Haridas Pali and the date of her alleged marriage — deceased's divorce from his first wife dated 24.06.1999 post-dated the Will, hence the alleged marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void — declaration that appellant is not the legally wedded wife upheld — no substantial question of law arises.

¶1

¶2

Judg..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2025

¶5

Kalawati Ramkrishna Shende Vs. Ravindra Ramkrishna Shende and ors

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. Alok Daga, Advocate for appellant.

¶8

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 13.01.2026.

¶9

. The present appeal is filed by the original defendant, against whom concurrent decrees have been passed, granting declaration that she is not legally wedded wife of late Ramkrishna Shende and for declaration that Will dated 03.03.1998, allegedly executed by late Ramkrishna, is illegal and void. The appellant is the original defendant No.1. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are original defendant Nos.2 and 3. The original defendant No.4 is the mother of respondent Nos.1 and 2/original plaintiffs.. She has expired while the First Appeal was pending. The parties will be referred to as “plaintiffs” and “defendants”.

¶10

It is not in dispute that late Ramkrishna is father of plaintiffs and defendant No.5. It is not in dispute that defendant No.5 was legally wedded wife of deceased Ramkrishna.

¶11

2 24. Judg..odt

¶12

The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the present appellant also came to be dismissed.

¶13

As regards the Will, the same is a registered document. However, out of the two attesting witnesses, although one was attesting witness was alive at the relevant time, he is not examined as a witness. The evidence of son of other attesting witness is restricted only to identification of signature of his father, who has signed the Will as attesting witness.

¶14

The learned Courts have, therefore, rightly held that the Will is not proved, since the other attesting witness, who was alive, was not examined.

¶15

The other issue pertains to the status of defendant No.1 as legally wedded wife of deceased Ramkrishna. On this aspect, the case of defendant No.1 was that she was all the while residing with deceased Ramkrishna as his legally wedded wife and that longstanding association between deceased Ramkrishna and her would give rise to presumption that they were living together as legally wedded couple. In this regard, reference needs to be made to the Will dated 03.03.1998, on which defendant No.1 places reliance. In the said Will, Ramkrishna has referred to defendant No.1 as his wife. This implies that according to defendant No.1 her marriage with Ramkrishna was solemnized before 03.03.1998. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 was

¶16

¶17

Judg..odt

¶18

married to one Haridas Pali prior to her alleged marriage with Ramkrishna. The findings recorded by the learned Courts will indicate that deceased Haridas, the first husband of defendant No.1, also died somewhere around in the year 1998. Defendant No.1 could have placed definite evidence on record with respect to the exact date of demise of her first husband, which she has failed to do. Marriage of defendant No.1 with Ramkrishna can be held to be legal only if it was solemnized after the demise of Haridas, the first husband of defendant No.1. In the considered opinion of this Court, the burden to prove the exact date of demise of Haridas was squarely on defendant No.1. It was necessary for defendant No.1 to prove the date of her alleged marriage with deceased Ramkrishna as well. Defendant No.1 has not led any evidence with respect to the exact date of demise of her first husband, as also her date of marriage with deceased Ramkrishna.

¶19

It also needs to be stated that Ramkrishna got divorce with his first wife, mother of the plaintiffs on 24.06.1999 i.e. after the date of execution of will in which defendant No.1 is referred as wife of Ramkrishna. Therefore, it is obvious that Ramkrishna married the defendant No.1 while his marriage with his first wife was subsisting and such marriage is obviously void.

¶20

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Courts have rightly granted declaration that

¶21

4 24. Judg..odt

¶22

defendant No.1 cannot claim to be legally wedded wife of deceased Ramkrishna.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal, Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶24

Judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 2016 and judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No.242 of 2009, are confirmed.

¶25

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

Tanmay...

Kalawati Ramkrishna Shende v. Ravindra Ramkrishna Shende and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati Ramkrishna Shende v. Ravindra Ramkrishna Shende and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Meena W/O Shankar Khapekar vs Smt. Mithil S/O Dhanraj Dobakar

Akhil Khan Dilawar Khan vs Malinibai Gopalrao Mahalle (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Prabhakar Baburao Wankhede

Sunilkumar S/O Nandlal Peepra vs the Chief Conservator of Forest (Production), Nagpur

Moreshwar Rode and Other vs Anil Waghmare and Other

Santosh Shahji Walke Vs Bhagwat Pralhad Kavarkhe

Nandkishor Onkar Mawaskar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Food Supply and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors.