2708crn4042.08.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4042 OF 2008 1. WAMANRAO S/O NATTHUSA LAHOTE MHAISANG, DIST. AKOLA .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. JYOTI W/O WAMANRAO LAHOTE & 2 ORS. C/O DADARAO NASURDE, LANE 2, NAWAYE NAGAR, AMRAVATI 2. VAISHNAVI WAMANAO LAHOTE THRU. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER C/O DADARAO NASURDE, LANE 2, NAWAYE NAGAR, AMRAVAT 3. STATE OF MAH. .. RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms PB Yerwalekar, Adv. H/f Mr. VM Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. RN Khade, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. DM Kale, APP for respondent No. 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 27TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. :- 1. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No. 2, Amravati has granted maintenance to respondents No. 1 and 2 by order dated 05/4/2008 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 277 of 2006. The revision filed against this order being revision application No. 57 of 2008 came to be dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant. The only point raised before me was regarding marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1. According to the applicant, the applicant was already married one Suman and in the cross examination of respondent No. 1 the evidence was collected so as to show that respondent No. 1 knew that the applicant was already married. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of respondent No. 1 in proper perspective and declined to accept the evidence. 2708crn4042.08.odt 2/3 3. I have perused the cross examination of respondent No. 1. She, in the first part of the cross examination, states that she does not know whether Suman (so called first wife) is married to the applicant. At the later point she states that the present applicant was already married is known to her. This sentence was sought to be termed as admission on the part of respondent No. 1 that she knew that applicant is married to Suman. After having considered this statement, the argument advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant that respondent No. 1 admitted marriage between the applicant and Suman, cannot be accepted because in the first place the said sentence cannot be termed as an admission. Secondly, the said sentence to my mind is a statement made by witness who was unable to understand the purport of the said question. If at all, it was the case of the applicant that he was already married with Suman, he could have produced cogent evidence in support of that. The simple assertion by Suman in her evidence by way of oral testimony as well as assertion of testimony cannot support the case of the applicant that a marriage was solemnized between the applicant and Suman. Suman states that she got married 50 years ago and these words, by itself, are not sufficient. There should have been some other material or some other person could have deposed in favour of the applicant that the applicant had already married Suman. It is also required to be noted that the applicant accepted respondent No. 1 in his house and continued to stay with her. Documentary evidence in the nature of election extract, etc. were brought into existence and produced on record in that regard. In my view, the circumstances under which respondent No. 1 stayed with the applicant lead to a conclusion that respondent No. 1 was wife of the applicant. 2708crn4042.08.odt 3/3 The documentary evidence will have to be read in favour of respondent No. 1 though there is no document in the nature of certificate of registration of marriage. 4. In substance, the stand taken by the applicant that respondent No. 1 was not married to him cannot be accepted. The stand taken by the applicant that he is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondents cannot be accepted. The application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Application is dismissed. JUDGE wwl