1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.905 OF 2008 Sulochana Janardhan Taywade ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, advocate for petitioner. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition against the order dated 20th November, 2008 rendered by the Court of Sessions at Nanded in Criminal Revision Petition No. 193/2008. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner filed proceedings vide Misc. Criminal Application no.296/2007 for separate maintenance allowance 2 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate granted separate maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.800 p.m. to her. The Sessions Judge, however, reversed the findings of the learned Magistrate by allowing the Criminal Revision No.193/2008 vide impugned order. 4. It is well settled that while exercising the criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court is required to examine whether there is prima facie material to infer perversity committed by the Court below in recording the findings of facts. The jurisdiction is of supervisory nature. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals certain glaring aspects (i) brother of the applicant (PW-Basvraj) clearly admitted that no religious ceremonies were performed during so called marriage between the parties. He admitted that there was no Saptapadi, marriage cards also not printed nor any priest performed the ceremonies. His cross-examination also indicated that when he (PW-Basvraj) was married then all such ceremonies were performed so the learned Sessions Judge inferred that there was no proof regarding the existence of any custom in the community of the applicant to do away with the necessary ceremonies for valid marriage as required under the provisions of 3 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. The main emphasis of the applicant is on nomination of her name in the Insurance Policy (Exh-15), Medical Insurance (Exh.-16) and other documents like the agreement for purchase of house property. What appears from the record is that the applicant was residing with the respondent together by mutual consent. That itself does not bestow the status of wife to her. She admits, unequivocally, that Rajeshree is the wife of the respondent no.1. According to the respondent, his marriage with said Rajeshree was performed in or about 1995. In other words, about three years prior to the alleged marriage between parties, the respondent was having a lawfully wedded wife though she was not residing with him at the relevant time. 7. Though in her application, the applicant pleaded that the marriage between herself and respondent no.1 was solemnized in the premises of her residential house yet during cross examination, she narrated that it was performed in the premises of Sai Baba Temple at Shirdi. Obviously, she changed venue of the said marriage during the course of trial and along with her brother she desires to make Sai Baba as witness of her second marriage. The fluctuations in her evidence and other attending 4 circumstances are duly considered by the Court of Sessions. No patent error is noticed in the fact findings. The Petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp905.08