1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Cri. Revn. No.11 of 2009 Smt. Uma Giravkar V/s. Shri Mohan @ Rupchand Ramasre +1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. R.P. Kalia, counsel for petitioner. Mr. V.A. Dhabe, counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. D.B. Yengal, A.P.P. for State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 7 th of August, 2009. Petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against respondent no.1 for maintenance in the Family court No.4 at Nagpur. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 19th January 2007. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed this petition. I have extensively heard learned Advocates on both sides and perused the impugned order. The petitioner claims that she got married with respondent no.1 on 2nd November 1998. The 2 petitioner claims that her earlier marriage got dissolved on 5th September 1998. Except the bare words no documentary evidence is produced in that behalf. The petitioner chosen to rely upon the election extract where she is shown as the wife of the petitioner’s father and no steps have been ever taken by the petitioner to correct said record. In no case that record by itself would prove the marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1. The petitioner claims that the marriage was solemnized in a temple. Neither any witness nor the Priest is examined in support of the fact that such a marriage was solemnized. No neighbour or even a near relative like uncle, aunt, maternal uncle is examined to say that the petitioner and respondent no.1 have been residing under one roof as husband and wife. The evidence of son of petitioner, begotten out of earlier marriage, no doubt, states that the petitioner and respondent no.1 were residing as husband and wife. In absence of any other witness to say that the petitioner and respondent no.1 were staying as husband and wife, said evidence will have to be styled as evidence of an interested person. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence placed before him in the proper perspective and by 3 giving reasons for each and every point arrived at conclusion that the petitioner’s stand that she got married with respondent no.1 has been rightly rejected by holding that the marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1 is not proved. Naturally, petitioner cannot expect any maintenance from the respondent no.1 and that is how the application has been rejected. After having considered the entire matter, I hold that the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the entire evidence in the proper perspective and no interference is called for. Hence the order. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE nvt.