1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2005 Sow.Gangabai w/o Sheshrao Salunke, age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o Bhokramba, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. Appellant Versus Sahebrao s/o Raghunath Salunke, age: 41 years, Occ: Agri. and Business, R/o Ganjur, Tq.Cakur, District Latur. Respondents Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 10th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff, who has failed to secure relief from the Courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.263/1999, claiming maintenance against Respondent-original defendant, It is her case that her marriage was solemnised with defendant as per Hindu rites and customs some eleven years before presentation of the suit. Defendant treated her properly for about a month only and thereafter started illtreating her and demanded money. After about one month of marriage, plaintiff went to the house of her parents after securing 2 permission from the defendant and since thereafter she is residing with her parents. According to the plaintiff, defendant performed illegal marriage with one Nagarbai and out of such relationship, Nagarbai gave birth to four children. According to the plaintiff, she is unable to maintain herself, as such, she has approached the court. 3 Defendant appeared, filed written statement and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. According to him, he is already married with one Sindhubai @ Nagarbai and she is his legally wedded wife. There are four children born to Sindhubai out of the wedlock with defendant. Defendant has denied marital relations with plaintiff. He has also denied allegations in respect of illtreatment. According to him, he got married with Sindhubai in the year 1985 itself and subsequent marriage, even if held to be proved, is invalid. Defendant, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4 The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of the defendant. The finding of fact in respect of marriage of plaintiff with defendant, recorded by the trial Court, has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish factum of her marriage with defendant and apart from these aspects, it is further recorded that defendant was already married with one Sindhubai @ Nagarbai and as such, the alleged marriage of plaintiff with defendant cannot be recognised in law. 3 5 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in respect of validity of marriage of plaintiff with defendant need not be interfered. It is also not a case of plaintiff that there was cohabitation with defendant for long duration, which entitles her to secure maintenance. 6 Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Ramesh Chandra R. Daga Vs. Rameshwari R.C. Daga, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6990. The Apex Court has ruled in the matter that even if marriage between the parties is declared as null and void, it does not dis-entitle the wife from claiming maintenance. The facts in the reported judgment are different than the facts of instant matter. In the instant matter, plaintiff has failed to establish her marriage with defendant and apart from that there is a finding of fact recorded by the Court below that defendant was already married and there are four children out of the said wedlock and said marriage is still subsisting. There was also no cohabitation between plaintiff and defendant for a longer period. These aspects dis-entitle the wife from claiming maintenance. The reliance on the reported judgment is misplaced. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa176805