1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2006 Daya Sagar s/o Prabhu Sawre .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sunita d/o Ganpatrao .. RESPONDENT Shri P.M. Janapurkar with Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocates for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd September 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by the original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Defendant no. 1, according to plaintiff, is not his legally wedded wife, however, she claims herself to be the wife of plaintiff. Plaintiff as such seeks negative declaration to the effect that defendant no. 1 be declared as his not to be legally wedded wife. It is contended that defendant no. 1 had instituted certain proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had sought order in respect of disbursement of monthly 2 maintenance allowance against plaintiff. It is also contended that defendant presented Regular Civil Suit no. 4151988 claiming declaration to the effect that she is legally wedded wife of plaintiff. However, the suit came to be dismissed on merit on 29-2-1992. Plaintiff as such seeks negative declaration dis-entitling the defendant to claim herself to be the legally wedded wife of plaintiff. 3 Defendant contested the claim raised by plaintiff by filing written statement. She reiterates her contention that she is legally wedded wife of plaintiff and the instant suit is filed in order to pressurise her for refraining her from pursuing the legal remedies. 4 Trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his case and as such dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dt. 24-8-2005. Appeal presented by original plaintiff being Regular Civil Appeal no. 86/2005 scame to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Nilanga who was pleased to dismiss the same on 17-8-2006. 5 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. 3 Considering the factual aspect of the matter, the courts below have turned down the claim raised by plaintiff. In view of provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, declaration as sought for by plaintiff is not permissible. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 6 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa896.06.odt