( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2008 Dwarkabai w/o Harichandra Palwade APPELLANT VERSUS Harichandra s/o Kundlik Palwade RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.V. Mundhe, advocate for the appellant. Mr. E.P. Sawant, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant’s suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and arrears thereof came to be dismissed. In her suit (Spl.C.S. No. 21/2003), the appellant asserted that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. She alleged that in the month of Vaishakh, 1991, their marriage was solemnized and thereafter, she resided with him for about 2/3 years. ( 2 ) According to her, she was treated well for about a year or so and later on subjected to matrimonial cruelty. She has been abandoned by him by him and is entitled to maintain herself. Therefore, she sought separate maintenance allowance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Both the Courts below rendered concurrent finding that the appellant could not establish matrimonial relationship with the respondent. That was the contentious issue raised by the respondent in his pleadings. The appellant did not plead the nature of ceremonies performed during course of the marriage. She vaguely submitted that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent, but failed to prove the issue by adducing acceptable evidence. Copy of the voters list (Exh-29) was filed on record to prove her joint residence with the respondent. However, the year of the voters list is not clarified. According to the appellant, she resided only for about 2/3 years in the house of the respondent. Thus, at the most, she was with him uptill year 1993. The entry in the voters list could be only upto that period. The appellant failed to prove why the claim was not put forth within a reasonable time ( 3 ) after the alleged abandonment. The suit was filed in the year 2003 after almost ten (10) years of the alleged separation and abandonment. There was no exchange of notices nor any action was taken by her during the relevant period of ten (10) years. Considering these aspects, the findings of fact rendered by the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse. No substantial question of law as such is involved in the appeal and, therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa924-08