1 (6) WP 9459/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9459 OF 2009 Anita Raju Manjal .. Petitioner Vs. Raju Hanmantu Manjal .. Respondent Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. S. A. Kumbhakoni for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 11th October, 2010 P.C. 1. The Application was filed by the Petitioner for interim maintenance pending the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The right of interim maintenance is granted to a wife or husband. The Petitioner, therefore, must show that he or she is a husband or wife. Such applicant may be in such a position under a marriage performed under the Hindu Marriage Act, whether it is void and valid. Such a marriage being a sacrament requires the ceremonies mentioned in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act to be followed. Prima facie, therefore, the applicant must show these ceremonies having been performed. 3. The marriage of the Petitioner is disputed. The status of the Petitioner as a wife is, therefore, disputed. The Petitioner has shown her marriage through 2 (6) WP 9459/09 a wedding card and certain documents of a hospital that she was admitted for the purpose of abortion where the husband’s name is shown. The learned Judge has considered that the marriage is prima facie not proved. Since a Hindu Marriage stated to have been performed under the Hindu Marriage Act requires the ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act to be performed if those are not prima facie shown to have been performed, no interim order of maintenance can be granted. 4. Of course upon evidence being led and marriage being sufficiently proved the permanent order of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be passed. 5. The Petitioner wife relied upon certain judgments in the case of Laxmibai Vs. Ayodhya Prasad alias Ramadhar AIR 1991 MADHYA PRADESH 47 strict literal meaning for considering a “wife” as only a legally married wife and husband should not be given. That is correct. Hence even a wife of a void marriage would be entitled to interim maintenance. However at least a marriage which is otherwise void under the Hindu Marriage Act having been performed has to be shown. 6. This is in terms of the judgments in the case of Smt. Rajeshbai and others Vs. Smt. Shantabai AIR 1982 BOMBAY 231 and Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas Vs. Reena Krishna Vyas and others 1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 388 relied upon by the Petitioner wife. Since the Petitioner wife has not shown the existence of a even void marriage, the impugned order does not deserve any interference. 3 (6) WP 9459/09 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)