The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence of marriage, birth certificates, and witness testimonies to establish the marital relationship, and the husband's failure to discharge his burden of proof regarding the wife's awareness of his previous marriage.

N.W. Sambre, J.

Since in both these Petitions, the order questioned is the same and concerns the same parties, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "D.V. Act") thereby modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers pursuant to provisions of Section 12 of the said Act, enhancing benefits to be given to the wife, is questioned herein by the husband, whereas wife has questioned the same order for inadequate monetary relief.

3. The facts, as are necessary for the decision of the present petitions, are as under :

Ravindra, Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 606 of 2014, claims to have married to one Jayshree on or about 12.2.1993, out of which relationship, he was blessed with two daughters and a son. It is claimed that respondent-Karishma got acquainted with Ravindra and after their love relationship, got married on 14.2.2000 at Pune. It is claimed that Ravindra and Karishma thereafter resided together at various places viz., Chalisgaon, Aurangabad and Pune and on 8.9.2002 given birth to daughter Raviriya at Pune.

4. It is then claimed that, as the relationship between Ravindra and Karishma got soured, having regard to certain criminal acts on the part of Ravindra, a complaint by Karishma for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 494 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be filed at Kothrud police station, Pune which then was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 1931 of 2004 (State v. Ravindra). Ravindra thereafter, after a full fledged trial, it is informed, had been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune and was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, was acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 494 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is then claimed that the said conviction was questioned in Criminal Appeal by Ravindra.

5. It is then claimed that Ravindra made Karishna to understand that he cares for her and so as to ensure her financial security, entered into an agreement on 2.9.2005 for purchase of a truck in her name after availing finance from Tata Finance Company. It is claimed that loan was obtained from Tata Finance Company in the name of Karishma Dhananjay Satarkar i.e. her maiden name.

6. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Ravindra filed proceedings for divorce from first wife Jayshree on 8.12.2005 in the Family Court, Aurangabad and, it is informed, the Court is said to have granted maintenance.

7. Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 4809 of 2006, at the behest of Ravindra, questioning the order of the Family Court, granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month, being Writ Petition No. 4809 of 2006, at the behest of Ravindra, came to be allowed and amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month.

8. A divorce petition preferred by the present petitioner Ravindra, being Petition No. A353/2005, was informed to have been dismissed for want of prosecution subsequently.

9. An important issue, of which this Court is required to take note of is Ravindra, a civil contractor was carrying out construction and other developmental activities, pursuant to registration certificate issued by the State Government.

10. It is claimed that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against Karishma through power of attorney holder of Ravindra, as cheques which were issued by Karishma for purchase of truck were dishonoured.

11. Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 2007 came to be instituted by Karishma against Ravindra on 18.1.2007 for perpetual injunction,