1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 510 of 2009 (Sou. Suchitra Govinda Channawar ...VERSUS... Govinda Jagobaji Channawar) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. U.J.Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. M.P.Khajanchi, Advocate for the Respondent. C ORAM : Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. Heard Mr. U.J. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.P.Khajanchi, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant, divorced wife of the respondent, challenges the judgments passed by the learned trial and appellate court, dismissing the suit of the appellant for separate residence in the house of the respondent under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”). Both the courts, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the appellant was not the wife of the defendant/respondent on the date of the institution of the suit for separate residence as the marriage between plaintiff and defendant was dissolved before the institution of the suit. Both the courts have observed that the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to file an 2 application under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1956 for separate residence in the house of the defendant. By placing reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court in the case of Vihalal Mangaldas Patel ..vs.. Smt. Maiben Vihalal Patel, reported in A.I.R. 1995 Gujrat 88, it was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the word 'wife' in Section 18 of the Act of 1956 would also include a lady whose marriage with her husband has been dissolved by the decree of divorce. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the marriage between the parties was dissolved by the decree of divorce, the appellant was entitled to a separate residence in her husband's house in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1956. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied on two decisions of this High Court, in the case of Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Gade ..vs.. Sandeep Vinayak Gade, reported in A.I.R. 2005 Bombay 180 ; and Panditrao Chimaji Kalure ..vs.. Gayabai, reported in A.I.R. 2001 Bombay 445, to canvass that a divorced wife cannot seek maintenance under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 as the same can be claimed only by a wife, whose marriage with her husband subsists on the date of institution of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the remedy for such a divorced wife is only under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as held by this Court in Panditrao Kalure's case (supra). It is submitted on behalf of the respondent by relying upon other Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mrs. Manisha Gade's case (supra) 3 that once divorce is granted, a petition by wife under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 cannot be maintained. I follow the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Mrs. Manisha ..vs.. Sandeep and rely on the judgment in Panditrao Kalure's case, to hold that the trial and first appellate court did not commit any error whatsoever in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 for separate residence in the house of the respondent. In view of the clear view expressed by this Court in the two above said judgments, it would not be necessary to consider the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Vihalal Patel's case (supra) as the same is not in consonance with the view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale