Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.:- The vexed question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to right to claim maintenance of a Hindu woman who is married after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to a Hindu male having a legally wedded wife.

2. The brief factual background against which the question is required to be considered is as follows:

In June, 1983 the appellant married the respondent at which time he already had a lawfully wedded wife living. The appellant and the respondent stayed together for a period of 17 years before they separated on 21st December, 1999. Then, the respondent filed M.J. Petition No.B-42 of 2000 in the Family Court, Mumbai for a declaration that his marriage with the appellant is null and void and for an injunction to restrain the appellant from representing herself as his wife and from visiting his place of residence, as also his work place. The appellant resisted the petition claiming ignorance of the earlier marriage of the respondent. She contended that since the marriage ceremony was duly performed with her and the marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage, she is the legally wedded wife. She also alleged that she was deceived into the marriage by the respondent who had declared himself as a divorcee at the time of registration of the marriage. Along with the written statement, the appellant filed counterclaim praying for provision of separate residence and permanent alimony. She also sought permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from disposing off certain properties and creating third party rights over the same.

3. The Family Court by its judgment and decree dated 3rd August, 2006 partly allowed the petition of the respondent and rejected the counterclaim of the appellant. The Family Court found that marriage of the appellant with the respondent had taken place during the subsistence of the respondent's first marriage and consequently is void. However, it refused the declaration as sought by the respondent that the marriage is void in view of Section 23(a) and (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, on the ground that by filing the petition for nullity of the marriage, the respondent wanted to take advantage of his own wrong. Also there was unnecessary, unreasonable and improper delay in instituting the petition. The Family Court, however, restrained the appellant from visiting the respondent's place of residence and place of his work.

4. While considering the claim of the appellant for maintenance, though the application filed there for was under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, the question framed by the Family court for consideration was "Whether the Second wife can legally claim any maintenance amount under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act." It then noted that the appellant was unable to cite any authority to justify the claim of second wife and answered the question without any further discussion stating that "the legal position is almost settled that since the second marriage during subsistence of first one is void, the second wife does not get any rights as regards the maintenance. As a result, I hold that the respondent being the second wife of the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. Thereafter, Family Court considered the appellant's claim on merit also and rejected the same holding that she has sufficient income for her own maintenance.

5. When the present appeal was admitted on 12th December 2006, its admission was limited to the claim of the appellant for maintenance and to the order restraining the appellant from visiting the respondent's place of residence and work. The submissions on the appeal are further restricted to the claim of maintenance alone. No submissions have been advanced by either side on the order restraining the appellant from visiting the place of residence and work of the respondent.

6. M