1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.266 OF 2008 Smt.Kausalya @ Ranjana Pandharinath Pasalkar .. Appellant V/s Smt.Kausalya @ Malan Pandharinath Pasalkar & Ors..Respondents Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Appellant.. Mr.Sandeep V.Marne for the Respondents. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Smt.Kausalya @ Ranjana Pandharinath Pasalkar has filed this present Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated December 4, 2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Pune thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on September 7, 2004. 2. The controversy in the present Second Appeal relates to the grant of succession certificate. Misc.Application No.413 of 2000 was filed by Kausalya @ Malan against (i)Ms.Sonali, dauther of Pandharinath, (ii)Shri.Kamlakar – son of Pandharinath from his first wife, (iii)Smt.Ranjana, who claims to be legally wedded wife of Pandharinath and (iv & 2 v)Baban & Avinash, two sons of Pandharainath from Ranjana. Misc.Application No.476 of 2000 was filed by Kamlakar, son of Pandharinath from his first wife against (i)Kausalya @ Malan, (ii) Ms.Sonali, (iii) Kausalya @ Ranjana (iv) Baban and (v) Avinash. 3. It is undisputed that Kamlakar is the son of Pandharinath from his first wife. It is the case of Malan that after the death of first wife of Pandharinath, the marriage between her (Malan) and Pandharinath took place, and that she is the legally wedded wife of Pandharinath. It is her further case that Ranjana is not the legally wedded wife of Pandharinath as her marriage (Malan’s marriage) with Pandharinath all along was subsisting. Baban and Avinash are the sons of Ranjana and consequently illigitimate sons of Pandharinath. The courts below found that Malan was married to Pandharinath in 1979 and she filed proceedings u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance. Though the maintenance was not awarded to her on the ground that she was able to maintain herself, Pandharinath did not dispute the claim of Malan that she was the legally wedded wife of Pandharinath. Apart from that Malan had also initiated prosecution against Pandharinath and Ranjana for the offence of begamy u/s.494 IPC. The matter was 3 compromised by filing the compromise pursis at Exhibit 84 which indicate that Malan was legally wedded wife of Pandharinath after the demise of his first wife. The proceedings u/s.125 of the Cr.P.C.are on record at Exh.32, 33 and 38 as also pursis at Exhibit 84 in a bigamy case u/s.494 IPC. Considering this material on record the courts below have held that Sonali, Kamlakar, Baban, Avinash, and Malan have 1/5 share in the assets and securities of the Pandharinath and ordered issue of succession certificate on payment of requisite court fee stamps. 4. Mr.Limaye, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is no positive finding recorded by the courts below that Malan is legally wedded wife of Pandharinath. He therefore submitted that the court committed grave error in rejecting the claim of Ranjana. 5. Perusal of Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment passed by the Appellate court clearly indicates that the Appellate court considered all the aspects of the matter and in particular documentary evidence on record and clearly recorded the finding that Malan was the legally wedded wife of Pandharinath. In view of this Ranjana is not entitled to any relief. Courts below have rightly turned down the claim of 4 Ranjana for issue of succession certificate. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the courts below. Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record properly. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Second Appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)