HARSHADA DEVIDAS GHATEversusDEVIDAS SUKHDEV GHATE

2026:BHC-AUG:39600


                                                *1*                      36revn177o19


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2019
                                 HARSHADA DEVIDAS GHATE
                                           VERSUS
                                  DEVIDAS SUKHDEV GHATE
                                               ...
                Advocate Kazi Sabahat T., for the Applicant.
                Shri Navin S. Shah, advocate h/f Shri Natu Sharad V., advocate
                for the sole respondent.
                                               ...

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 31 August 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.          The applicant is challenging the judgment and order

                dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhule, in

                Petition No.E-7/2013 and further praying for issuance of

                direction to the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per

                month to the applicant.


                2.          According to the applicant, the marriage of the

                applicant with the respondent took place on 11.11.2010 as per

                Hindu rites. In view of certain differences between the couple,

                the applicant filed the application under Section 125 of the Code

                of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Dhule,

                claiming   maintenance. Vide     the   impugned    order    dated
                                 *2*                      36revn177o19


28.03.2019, the said application came to be dismissed.


3.          Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the

learned Family Court has not considered the judgment delivered

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Sou.

Urmita Badshah Godse and another, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : AIR

2014 SC 869 wherein, the second wife is also held to be entitled

for maintenance. According to the learned advocate, the

impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and therefore, requires to

be quashed and set aside.


4.          Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent

strenuously opposed the instant revision on the ground that the

learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment by

following correct position of law. The learned Family Court has

observed that the applicant has admitted about her previous

marriage with one Ganesh More. The applicant also failed to

produce the divorce decree issued by the competent court. Since

the earlier marriage is in subsistence, the applicant cannot be

held to be legally wedded wife of the respondent and thus, is not

entitled for maintenance from the respondent. There is no error in

the findings arrived at by the Family Court. There is no illegality
                                 *3*                       36revn177o19


or perversity in the impugned judgment. Learned advocate,

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant revision.


5.           After hearing the learned advocates for the

respective parties and perusing with their assistance the available

record, I find that the applicant has filed the application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the premise

that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on

11.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and therefore, she is legally

wedded wife of the respondent. However, the applicant, in her

cross-examination, has admitted that her earlier marriage was

solemnized with one Ganesh Rambhau More and she has

obtained divorce by executing the divorce on stamp paper. It is

admitted position that the applicant has not produced any valid

decree of divorce of the competent court and in the absence of

same, it cannot be said that earlier marriage was dissolved.

Hence, the learned Family Court has not committed any error in

passing the impugned order. Even the judgment relied upon by

the learned advocate for the applicant in the case of Badshah

(supra) is not applicable to this case as the facts are altogether

different.
                                       *4*                      36revn177o19


      6.           In view of the above discussion, I find that no error,

      much less any manifest illegality or perversity, is committed by

      the Family Court warranting interference in exercise of

      revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Application,

      therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )