1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3711 of 2008 (Sau. Shital Paresh Bawankar v. Mr. Paresh Prabhakar Bawankar) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri R. Vyas, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 27th November, 2008 This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the applicant-wife seeks to have the revisional judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha quashed and set aside. The applicant claims have been married to the non-applicant on 19-6-2006. After residing at the house of the non-applicant for two to three days, she returned to her parental house. She returned to the matrimonial house for a few days thereafter. On 29-6-2006, that is just thirteen days after the marriage, she came to know that the non-applicant was already married to one Kiran Patil and also had a son of that relationship. She claims to have questioned her husband, but he stated that he was already married and his marriage to the applicant was against his will. The applicant returned to the parental house and had issued notice to the non-applicant through her lawyer and then filed the application for maintenance. 2 The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulgaon, held in favour of the applicant and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month to the applicant. On husband's revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, held that the marriage of the non-applicant with Kiran Patil was not at all proved and, therefore, there was no justification whatsoever for the applicant to stay away from the non-applicant. He also observed that if the non-applicant was indeed married to Kiran Patil prior to his marriage to the applicant, the applicant would not be entitled to maintenance. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The only evidence tendered by the applicant was her own word on oath. She has not tendered any evidence to show that the non-applicant was indeed married to Kiran Patil or that they had a child. She had no means to know that the non- applicant was married. Her word is rebutted by the evidence of the non-applicant himself, who had stated that the applicant was residing away from him for absolutely no reason. The learned counsel for the non-applicant sought to rely on a judgment of the High Court of Madras in Mallika and another v. P. Kulandai, reported at 2000 Cri.L.J. 142, where the husband had married to the petitioner on misrepresentation that his earlier wife was dead. Such is not the present case. In this case, the husband repeatedly maintains that he is not married to anyone except the applicant. It is the phantom in the mind of the applicant, 3 which prevents her from going back to the matrimonial house. The learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted for setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. No interference is called for. The application is rejected. JUDGE pdl