1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1525 of 2010 Lata w/o Vijen Khandelwal V/s. State of Maharashtra through its P.S.O. Murtizapur, District Akola ......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................... Mr. S. G. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. A. S. Sonare, APP for the Non-Applicant No.1 Mr. Sudhir Malode, Advocate for the Non-Applicant No.2 CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011. Learned Advocate Mr. Sudhir Malode, filed affidavit of the Non-Applicant No. 2 dated 14/10/2011, wherein in the sworn statement, Shri. V. M. Khandelwal stated that applicant Lata, his wife, who was divorced pursuant to decree passed in H.M.P. Case No. 205/2008, remarried with one Sushil s/o Bhikamchand Khandelwal on 13/02/2011, near Indore City in Madhya Pradesh and residing with her husband in Flat No. 67-68, Jeevan Abhinandan Apartment, Geeta Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, while the children of the non-applicant no. 2 namely Master Sarthak and Ku. Vidhi are residing with Non-Applicant No. 2 at Warud, Tah. Warud, Dist. Amravati. This affidavit was signed on 14/10/2011, filed by Shri. Malode, learned Advocate appearing for non- 2 applicant no.2. According to him, copy was supplied to the counsel appearing for applicant. Today, learned Advocate Mr. D. I. Jain, appearing for the applicant seeks time to take instructions. Considering that the copy of affidavit was supplied long back and sworn statement was made regarding remarriage of the applicant with Sushil on 13/02/2011 as also her stay with Sushil in Flat No. 67-68, Jeevan Abhinandan Apartment, Geeta Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, of which copy was supplied to the learned Advocate for the applicant and, therefore, no time can be granted. The settled legal position is that the husband is not liable to maintain his remarried wife after her remarriage, furthermore, children are admittedly residing with non-applicant no. 2. That being so, nothing survives in this application. Petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Punde