(1) SA. 854.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2005 Girmaji S/o Pandurang Maske and others .. Appellants VERSUS Yeshodabai called herself w/o Girmaji Maske and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5581 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2005 Girmaji S/o Pandurang Maske and others .. Applicants VERSUS Yeshodabai called herself w/o Girmaji Maske and others .. Respondents Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for the Appellants/Applicants Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advcoate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 S.A. stands dismissed against respondent no.1 as per Court's order dated 22.3.2010 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard Mr. Kale extensively. The concurrent findings against the appellant (original defendant no.1) is subject of challenge in the Second Appeal. (2) SA. 854.2005 2] Mr. Kale submits that, the substantial question of law in the matter would be, "The Courts have misread the evidence about the status of plaintiff to be the wife of the defendant no.1 (the appellant) herein". 3] Both the Courts have analysed the evidence of plaintiff and her witness cousin, who unmistakably indicated, that the ceremonies of taking rounds to the sacred fire has taken place. Garlanding was there and the marriage was performed. The long standing co-habitation of plaintiff no.1 is also illustrated. The school record of Mirabai, plaintiff no.3 having born on 1.8.1985 is at exhibit 23 while the school record of plaintiff no.2 having born on 12.3.1968 is at exhibit 52. In this school records, parental name i.e. father is shown to be the defendant no.1. The contention that there is lot of variance in the age of plaintiff no.2, with the theory propogated by the wife needs consideration. The wife has stated that she was driven away and was living with her parents from 1968-1982 for 14 years, that by itself will not diminish the evidentiary value that there can-not be birth of plaintiff no.2 as on 12.3.1968. The subsequent birth of the plaintiff no.3 was of 1985. It may be, for that duration of 14 years, the plaintiff no.1 could be away and they have patched up their relations. The election identity card issued in the name of (3) SA. 854.2005 plaintiff in the year 1994 also certifies her status to be a wife of defendant no.1. The evidence of the witness Dnyanoba as stated above being cousin on that ground itself need not be castigated and thrown away. The evidence of defendant no.1 at exhibit 47 also needs to be scanned. He says he got married to defendant no.2 and defendant nos. 3 and 6 are the legitimate children. He says such marriage was in the year 1973. This, the learned Judge did not accept. It may be that the defendant no.2 has extra- marital status with the defendant no.1 however, for that purpose the status of the plaintiff no.1 with the defendant no.1 need not be doubted. The Courts have also properly read letter dated 8.11.1983 (exhibit 38) of defendant no.1 addressed to the plaintiff no.1 wherein he urged her for co- habitation, this letter speaks volumes about the conduct of the defendant no.1. 4] Taking survey of the evidence, it cannot be said that there is misreading of evidence, requiring any interference in the findings. The substantial question of law proposed by the learned counsel will not subsist to be adjudicated upon. Second Appeal dismissed with Civil Application no. 5581 of 2005. No costs. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp