The judgment and order dated 10.2.2016 passed in First Appeal No.577 of 2015 is the subject matter of this review petition. The petitioner is the second wife of late Jaydeo Pawar and both the wives claimed pension amount of Jaydeo Pawar after his death. Both the wives along with their respective children claimed property. Jaydeo Pawar died on 10.7.2003 during the pendency of the suit, his first wife Draupada died on 14.2.2006 so her children being the legal representatives of Jaydeo Pawar and Draupada, contested the matter. The appeal filed by the respondent Draupada was allowed. It is held that the first wife has a right in the property and the second wife i.e., Indubai, cannot have any right to receive the family pension. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order challenged the said order before the hon'ble supreme Court and the hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.6966 of 2016 by order dated 18.3.2016 passed an order as follows:

"After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even assuming that the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to the family pension, since the marriage is void even then the child born in that marriage will be entitled to succeed to the property of his father. It is not clear whether the petitioners had taken this issue before the High Court. We feel it will be appropriate to take up this issue before the High Court by way of review, so that the respondents need not be unnecessarily called to this court, in a family pension case.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to file a review application before the High Court. If it is filed within thirty days, the same will be considered on merits."

2. Inter alia, the review petition was filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the order, certain facts are not taken into account proving the validity of the marriage on 22.6.1981 of Indubai and Jaydeo. He submitted that if the age of Draupada and her date of marriage are valid then it shows that Draupada was 11 years old and it itself nullifies the claim of Draupada that she got married first with Jaydeo. He further submitted that the evidence of Gram Sevak that the third entry in the marriage register of Draupada and Jaydeo was made subsequently is not considered. He further submitted that under the Right to Information Act, after the first appeal, legal heir of Indubai i.e., Shubhangi, contacted the printing press where the wedding cards of Draupada and Jaydeo allegedly published in the year 1979. However, the press itself came into existence in the year 1991, so the wedding card is fabricated. He submitted that this evidence is required to be considered. He further argued that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Shubhangi, the daughter of Indubai, has right in the property of her father even though the claim of Indubai is rejected on the ground of void marriage. He produced a birth certificate of Shubhangi dated 22.9.1987. He also relied on the order of maintainance dated 12.4.1994 which was granted by the learned JMFC, Vita, District Sangli in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.225 of 1989 passed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also relied on a purshis filed by Indubai earlier in the maintainance proceedings seeking permission to withdraw the matter as Indubai again started residing with Jaydeo and the said purshis was allowed on 28.5.1985.

4. Mr. Kothari, the learned Counsel, opposed this review petition. He submitted that this petition is not maintainable. The order of this Court in respect of second marriage is upheld by the hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, that finding cannot be disturbed. He further submitted that the documents which are produced today, could have been obtained by the petitioner with due diligence at the time of trial. However, these documents were not produced during the trial and therefore, cannot be considered at this stage. The