1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 111/2009 Sunita Vinayak Humbarde, Age : 32 years, Occu. Household, R/o Vishnupuri, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, At present Telaki, Tq. Loha District Nanded. ....Applicant. Versus Vinayak s/o Madhavrao Humbarde, Age : 46 yers, Occu. Agri., R/o Vishnupuri, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ...Respondent. Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for applicant Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for respondent sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 19th October, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This is second revision application in the matter of the application of the maintenance proceeding initiated by applicant against the respondent / husband. 2 The applicant asserted in her application that she got married with the respondent on 25/05/1994. She said, after three months of the marriage, she learnt that the respondent has already a wife and a child. She alleged that there was harassment at the hands of the respondent which compelled her to leave the respondent’s house. She said, she is unable to maintain herself and so she made the present application for maintenance. The respondent in his defence flatly denied having married with the applicant. He said, in the year 1981, he got married to one Pramila. He said, he had three children from Pramila one of which is already married. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) 2 granted maintenance to the applicant but the first revision Court set aside the said order and dismissed the application seeking maintenance filed by the applicant. The applicant thus preferred this second revision application. The question is whether the applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent. The answer is in negative. The applicant admitted, she found that the respondent has a previous wife. In the cross examination, the applicant's counsel clearly suggested to the respondent and his witness that the respondent was married to one Pramila and thereafter, the relationship between the respondent and Pramila got strained and Pramila left him. 3 The applicant put forward further case that thereafter the respondent proposed marriage with the applicant. She suggested that at the time of marriage, she and her parents did not know that the respondent was already married. In any case, the applicant admitted that the respondent was already married. So, her marriage with the applicant though is proved, is not lawful one. The applicant thus would fail in her case. ORDER a) Criminal revision application stands rejected. b) None the less, if any amount is already deposited or paid by the respondent for the applicant, same shall not be recovered from the applicant or shall not be refunded to the respondent. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/