1 cri appln 1752.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1752 OF 2010 Smt. Nirmala W/o Raju Choudhari .. Applicant Versus 1. Raju S/o Sripat Choudhari and others .. Respondents Shri H. C. Puse, Advocate h/f Shri R. R. Imale, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. R. Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 8 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . This application is filed seeking leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate F. C. 5 th Court at Aurangabad in R.C.C. No. 950/2004 dated 17.02.2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the evidence of complainant and also other witnesses and submitted that the respondent No. 1 herein/Raju Sripat Choudhari has performed second marriage surviving his first 2 cri appln 1752.10 marriage. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant i. e. original complainant, her marriage with the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 24 th April, 2002. There was some dispute between the parties and she was constrained to approach the Court and the Court has awarded Rs. 700/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to other evidence and submitted that, this Court may grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 submits that, requirement of provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act has not been fulfilled. No evidence has been led by the complainant on that aspect. It is further submitted that, the Trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence brought on behalf of parties has reached to the conclusion that, there was no second marriage of the respondent No. 1 as stated by the complainant. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 would submit that, this application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. 4. Shri S. G. Nandedkar, appears for the respondent No. 8/State of Maharashtra and submits that, this dispute is between the applicant and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 interse. Therefore, the 3 cri appln 1752.10 respondent No. 8 has nothing to say. 5. Upon hearing counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State, I am of the opinion that, prima facie case is made out by the applicant to grant leave to appeal. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly appears that, the impugned judgment is cryptic and the learned Trial Court has not discussed the evidence which is brought on record by the complainant. The Trial Court was expected to analyse and scan the evidence in detail. After all second marriage which is not permissible and if said was performed by the respondent No. 1, it drastically affects on the applicant who is the wife of the respondent No. 1. It was the question of the applicant's life and, therefore, the Trial Court was duty bound to address all the points and to analyse the entire evidence brought on record. On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that, the Trial Court has not properly dealt with the submissions and also has not properly analysed the evidence brought on record on behalf of applicant. Hence this application seeking leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 17.02.2010 in R.C.C. No. 950/2004 deserves to be allowed in respect of only respondent No. 1/husband. 4 cri appln 1752.10 7. The language of Section 494 of the I. P. Code contemplates sentence/punishment to only husband. In my opinion, so far as respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, there is no sufficient material brought on record by the applicant so as to convict them. In fact, the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 may be present at the spot, however, that itself would not be fatal to convict them. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to allow this application in part. Leave to appeal from judgment of 5th J. M. F. C., Aurangabad dated 17.02.2010 in R.C.C. No. 950/2004 against the respondent No. 1 is granted. So far prayer of the applicant to grant leave to appeal against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 stands rejected. 8. The Registry is directed to register this application as appeal. Since the original Record and Proceedings are made available in this Court, no separate order is required. However, to prepare paper book the record should be sent back to the Trial Court. After preparation of the paper book, the Trial Court should sent back the record to this Court so as to enable this Court to refer the same at the time of final hearing of the appeal. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11