Point of law: Bigamous marriages are illegal as per the provisions of law but they are not immoral hence a financially dependent women cannot be denied maintenance, on the ground of being a second wife.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. Sanap, J.

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the petition No.A/395/2009 seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and petition No.E/29/2009 seeking maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant.

2. The facts leading to this case are as follows:-

According to the appellant, the marriage between her and respondent took place on 16th August, 2003 at Dikshabhoomi, Nagpur as per their customs and rites. After marriage they resided together as husband and wife. The appellant and respondent wanted a child and therefore, respondent took medical treatment from Medical Collage Hospital, Nagpur, Indira Gandhi Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur, Meyo Hospital, Nagpur and Tamaskar Test Tube Baby Centre, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Appellant always accompanied the respondent to the Hospital.

3. It is the allegation of the appellant that the respondent suppressed his first marriage with Chandrakala from her. It is stated that when the appellant came to know about it, she insisted the respondent to divorce his first wife. The respondent, therefore, filed a petition for divorce and they obtained divorce decree by mutual consent on 20th August, 2008. It is the case of the appellant that they lived together as husband and wife. In October, 2008, the respondent demanded Rs.50,000/- from the appellant. The respondent left the appellant when she refused to pay the money. The appellant took search of the respondent. The appellant found him at the house of his relative at Barse Nagar. The respondent and his relatives beat her when she went there. The respondent left her company without reasonable cause. The respondent failed to maintain the appellant. According to the appellant, she being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the respondent is bound to maintain her. On this averments, the appellant prayed for decree of restitution of conjugal rights in the Petition No.A/395/2009 and order of maintenance against the respondent under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Petition No.E/29/2009.

4. The respondent contested both the petitions by filing written statement/reply. He opposed the claim of the appellant. He denied the factum of marriage. It is the case of the respondent that he has no concerned, whatsoever nature with the appellant. He has denied that the appellant is his legally wedded wife. According to him, the allegations made by the appellant are false and frivolous. The appellant wanted to grab the property of the respondent and lead luxurious life with the respondent and therefore concocted this false case. The respondent was married with one Chandrakala in the year 1990. There was difference of opinion, due to thinking behaviour and attitude between the respondent and his wife Chandrakala. There used to be quarrels’ between them. He, therefore, filed a petition for divorce. The respondent and his wife decided mutually to dissolve their marriage. On the basis of consent terms filed by them, the marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 13th January, 2009. It is contended that the respondent is highly educated. He is running and managing the school near Kanji house, Nagpur. He is reputed person in the society. He is associated with many social organizations. It is contended that taking the advantage of the situation and particularly having an evil eye on his property the appellant concocted the story. The appellant extended threats to involve him in criminal case. She tried to burn herself in front of the house of the respondent. According to him, the appellant is not entitled to get either the decree of restitution of conjugal rights or the order for maintenance.

5. The appellant examined herself to subs