JUDGMENT - DABHOLKAR N.V., J.:---While considering Family Court Appeal No. 12/2003 (Bhausaheb v. Leelabai)1, Division Bench of this High Court (Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and V.G. Munshi, JJ.), felt satisfied that issue raised by the appellant-husband requires consideration by a larger Bench of this Court. Hence, after passing an elaborate order on 17-2-2003, the Division Bench directed the Additional Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, under Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, for a reference to a larger Bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the matter being placed before his Lordship, was pleased to constitute a Full Bench and that is how the present reference was heard and its being disposed of by this Full Bench.

2. Brief factual matrix of the litigation should be stated herein so as to appreciate how the point of controversy under reference arose and was referred.

Petition No. C-39/2001 was filed by Leelabai against appellant Bhausaheb for maintenance under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred as H.M. Act for the sake of brevity). The same was decided on 30-11-2002 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, who was pleased to allow the petition and Award maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. in favour of Leelabai from the date of petition. Appellant-Bhausaheb has taken a stand before Family Court of total denial of solemnization of marriage on 16-12-1997 and in the alternative, he also claimed that he was already having a spouse living on 16-12-1997 and therefore, alleged marriage with Leelabai on that day, cannot be said to be a valid marriage. Thus, contending that marriage, if any, between him and Leelabai, was void marriage in the light of section 5(i) read with section 11 of H.M. Act and therefore, she was not entitled for maintenance under section 25 of the said Act.

3. Eventually, this was not the first round of litigation of the parties. Earlier, Leelabai had approached Family Court by filing Petition No. A-165/1996 against one Narayan Ahire for dissolution of marriage and obtained an ex parte decree on 6-1-1997. The marriage between Leelabai and Narayan Ahire (Resumably, her first husband) stood dissolved by the said decision. Leelabai married appellant Bhausaheb thereafter on 16-12-1997. After some days since this marriage, she had filed prosecution against Bhausaheb under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P. Code. Simultaneously, she had filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Family Court, registered as Petition No. E-331/1999 for maintenance. The said petition was dismissed on 25-3-2000 by the Family Court observing that she was not legally wedded wife of Bhausaheb.

In the meanwhile, Leelabai had also filed Petition No. B-7/2000 before the Family Court, seeking a declaration that marriage between herself and Bhausaheb is valid marriage and Madhuri is their legitimate daughter. Along with that petition, she had filed Petition No. E-525/2000, seeking maintenance for daughter. These two petitions were decided on 29-11-2001. Petition, seeking declaration regarding validity of the marriage, was dismissed, again by observing that Leelabai was not a legally wedded wife of Bhausaheb. The child, Madhuri, however, was granted maintenance @ Rs. 500/- p.m.

On the backdrop of the above legal battles, Leelabai filed Petition No. C-39/2001 under section 25 of H.M. Act for permanent alimony which is allowed by the Family Court, as narrated hereinabove and hence, the first appeal by Bhausaheb.

4. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the Family Court appeal for admission, has taken a note that learned Judge of the Family Court has placed reliance upon decisions of this High Court in the matters of (Shantaram Patil v. Dagubai)2, 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 714(D.B.) and (Krishnakant Vyas v. Reena )3, 1999(1) Bom.C.R. 626(S.J.) : 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 388 and the ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document