1 wp 2826 of 2009 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2826 OF 2009. Sou. Gajrabai Narayan Bedekar, age: 40 years, Occn. Nil residing at: & post Thoseghar, Tal & Dist. Satara. ... Petitioner Original Applicant. -versus 1. Shri. Narayan Sitaram Bedekar, age: 36 years,Occn.Agriculturist, and business, residing at & Post Thoseghar, Tal & Dist. Satara. 2. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr. Rajesh B. Parab, for the Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Kharge, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 6th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition is preferred by a wife questioning revisional judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara granting maintenance at Rs.700/- per month to the petitioner. This order was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, firstly on the ground that the petitioner 2 wp 2826 of 2009 was already married to another person on 7.5.1988. He also observed that the respondent No.1 also married to one Nakusabai and from her respondent No.1 had two sons by name Shrimant and Sagar and he held that the claim of the petitioner that she was married to the respondent No.1 on 19.10.1993, was not believable and also held that the if the petitioner was deserted in the year 1997, her not filing any application till 15.9.2005 is intrigue. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Smt. Rudramma -vs- H.R. Puttaveerabhadrappa (1987 Cri L. J. 677). Karnataka High Court did not held that the Magistrate should not go into the question of essential ceremonies such as customary rites. In fact the Court held that on proof of solemnization of marriage between the parties, Magistrate may grant maintenance if the other requirements like neglect and refusal having been established. In this case the petitioner did not tender any evidence except producing some stamp paper at exh 43 and extract from the register maintained by the Gram Panchayat to show that she was married to respondent on 19.10.1993. No evidence to show that there was any ritual performed on 19.10.1993 was tendered by examining the priests or the persons who attended the ceremonies. 3 wp 2826 of 2009 On the other hand respondent had examined three witnesses to show that the petitioner was already married on 7.5.1988 which evidence the learned Magistrate had disbelieved because witnesses were not able to state how many marriages were performed in that year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the witnesses were of 69, 81 and 69 years old and they may not be able to tell after 20 years about the marriages which took place in the year 1988. Therefore, their inability to tell the number of marriages performed in the village in those years was inconsequential. It can not be said that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner was already married in the year 1988 or that the claim of the petitioner that she again married in the year 1993 becomes suspicious because of her inaction from 1997 i.e, from the alleged desertion by respondent No.1 within four years of her alleged marriage is perverse. In view of this no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. Writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)