1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2010 Ashok s/o Baliram Indurkar age 53 years, occup.Private service, r/of Peth Amrapur, Motewar Galli, Degloor, Tq. Appellant/ Degloor, District Nanded. Plaintiff versus Nila w/o Ashok Indurkar, age 51 years, occupation: Household, r/of Chauphala, Respondent/ Nanded. non applicant ----- Shri U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate, for the appellant. ----- Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : April 06, 2010 P. C. 01. This second appeal is filed by husband whose petition for divorce bearing No. AMP 30/2005 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on 13.2.2009, so also by the appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.64 of 2009 decided on 6.10.2009. 02. Some of the facts of this second appeal are admitted at this stage. It is no more disputed that 2 the appellant and respondent were the husband and wife and their marriage had taken place 30 years ago. They cohabited for about 10-12 years. The respondent gave birth to four children from the appellant. Thereafter, Respondent started living with her parents separately along with the children. Respondent also made application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance which was granted. She had also filed criminal complaint against appellant and his relatives for having committed bigamy. However, they were acquitted of the said charge. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he was subjected to cruelty by wife by filing various judicial proceedings and because of which he had been under mental stress. However, so far as proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, the trial court and the first appellate court held that those were proper proceedings in which the court granted maintenance to the wife. 03. As far as prosecution for bigamy is concerned, though the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal of appellant and his relatives, mere filing of such proceedings and ultimate acquittal of appellant and his relatives therefrom would not mean 3 that those were false proceedings. It was failure to prove the allegations. Filing of proceedings permitted by law cannot be said to be cruelty. I agree with this conclusion of the courts below. 04. So far as desertion is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that in 1979 he had gone to Mumbai to attend his ailing brother Suresh and stayed there for about a month, during which period the respondent-wife left his house. However, both the courts below did not accept this story which is not supported by other evidence. On the other hand, respondent came with a case that after 10-12 years marital life, appellant on 1.6.1989 performed second marriage with one Sangeeta and out of extra-marital relations with her, he has two children. So, assuming that there was no bigamous marriage, still the case of the respondent-wife remains that the appellant was residing with another woman treating her as wife and that was sufficient reason for respondent to withdraw from appellant's society. Both courts have also taken into consideration the fact that the respondent lived with appellant for 10-12 years. There was no other allegation made by the appellant against respondent- wife. In the circumstances, the courts below 4 concurrently held that the ground of cruelty or desertion is not proved. In fact, paragraph 15 of judgment of the first appellate court clearly indicates that the appellant had neglected to maintain and look after his children. In fact, it is also noted by the court his daughter Sarika died due to illness and the appellant did not make any effort for providing better medical aid to her. He also did not make any provision for maintenance of the children. 05. In absence of any substantial question of law, this second appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limini. pnd/sa208.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)