1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.213 of 1999 Shri Bhanudas Kondiba Kuchekar .. Applicant versus Sou Meera Bhanudas Kuchekar & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the applicant. None present for respnodent nos.1 and 2. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 26th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgement and order dated 28th March 1999 of the Family Court no.5, Pune, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.250/- to the respondent no.1 wife and Rs.250/- to the respondent 2 no.2, the son of the applicant. 3. Respondent no.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondent no.2 is their son. Respondent no.1 for herself and as mother guardian of the respondent no.2, filed an application u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the application interalia contending that respondent no.1 was not his legally wedded wife and the respondent no.2 was not his son. Therefore the petitioner not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondents. The Family Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the respondent no.1 had proved that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was her son born from the petitioner. The Family Court further held that the petitioner had failed and neglected to maintain the respondents, and directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.250/- per month to the respondent no.1 and Rs.250/- per month to the respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already married. Consequently, the marriage between the petitioner and 3 the respondent no.1 was not legal and the respondent no.1 was not entitled to any maintenance. Perusal of the revision petition and grounds of challenge taken therein shows that the petitioner has not taken up the ground that petitioner was already married and had a first wife living when he married the respondent no.1. In the revision memo, petitioner has not taken a ground that the marriage between him and the respondent no.1 was not valid on account of he having the first wife living. In the absence of any ground in the revision petition to that effect, the applicant cannot be allowed to raise this contention for the first time at the hearing. The contention is accordingly rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not contend that there was no marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1. His only contention was that the marriage was not valid, the respondent no.1 being the second wife. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court that respondent no.1 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner cannot be impugned. The trial court has considered the evidence on record has considered the fact that the petitioner had purchased for the respondent no.1 a mangalsutra with black beeds, which is an ornament customarily given by the husband to the wife at the time of marriage 4 for his conclusion. No explanation was offered by the petitioner why he purchased the mangalsutra for the respondent no.1 and how the respondent no.1 came in possession of the receipt of the purchase of mangalsutra. 6. The finding recorded by the trial court that the respondent no.1 was not the legally wedded wife is based on appreciation of evidence and no perversity in the said finding is seen. In the circumstances the finding that the respondent no.1 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner needs to be confirmed. 7. Marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1 took place at Alandi in April 1991. Respondent no.2 was born on 17th March 1993 i.e. after 280 days of the marriage. Respondent no.2 is therefore presumed to be the son of the petitioner. The finding recorded by the trial court is based on appreciation of evidence as well as on the statutory presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances, the finding that the respondent no.2 is the son of petitioner is also confirmed. 8. No arguments were advanced, and rightly so, regarding the quantum of maintenance. 5 9. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision application which is hereby dismissed with costs. 10. Rule is discharged with costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J)