{"id":16099,"date":"1965-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965"},"modified":"2015-08-12T05:22:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T23:52:48","slug":"tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","title":{"rendered":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 Bom 48, (1965) 67 BOMLR 478, 1966 CriLJ 131, ILR 1966 Bom 56<\/div>\n
Author: Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Naik, Palekar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Palekar, J.   <\/p>\n
 (1) This  is  a reference  by the  learned Additional  sessions judge,  Latur, Arising out  of an order  passed under S. 488,  Cr. P.C. by  the learned  judicial  Magistrate, F.C.  Udgir,  awarding  separate  maintenance  at the rate of the Rs. 30  per month  to the wife.  The wife,  the Tejabai  was married to the shankarrao  Baswanappa  in about 1954,  when she was a  minor.  Shankarrao  has a first  she was  the time.  Tajbai  filed the  application of under S., 488  Cr P.C  on 29-11-1963, alleging  that the she was  treated well for  about a year after the a marriage and that she was  ill – treated  thereafter,  and , finally,  beaten  and driven out  of the hours on 23-11-1963.  She  therefore  claimed maintenance  at the  husband  had an annual  to agricultural  income of Rs. 3,000  and used to each  Rs. 90  p.m. by  was of salary  as a Talati  the allegations  of ill – treatments  were denied  by the husband.   He alleged  that the  Tejbai  lived with him  for about  eight years  after he  marriage, and that she  had left him time of Nagpanchami in the year  before the  application  was filed.  He further,  alleged that the he has called her to this house,  but she was  refusing  to return  to him.  He therefore,  contended  that she was  not entitled  to any maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
  (2) The learned  judicial  Magistrate held that the alleged ill – treatment  had not been proved. At the  see t ime, he was of the  maintenance, “neglected  or refusal  to maintain” being presumed on account or the husband  having  another  wife. He  therefore,  ordered that the husband   Shankarrao  should pay  Rs. 30  p.m.  as maintenance’s  to her.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) Shankarrao,  thereupon, filed  a revision  petition in the court of the  sessions Judge at Latur.  The learned  Additional  session  judge held that the  Magistrate  had no  jurisdiction  to the pass the  order maintenance  merely on the ground of the Shankarrao having a  second wife. He was of the  view that the amendment of to sub =section  (3) of S. 488 Cr.  P.C. by Act  9 of the 1949,  did not  enlarge  the ambit  of the provision  did of S. 488 (1)  of the Cr. P.C.  and did not  supply  a new ground  for claiming  maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
  (4) Both  the courts  have held  that there  was no ill  = treatment  of the wife. That if a finding  of fact and is binding up  the this court.  The wife Tejbai  and had put forwards  the ground  of ill – treatment  has not been proved it must  be held that she  had voluntarily  left her  husbands  house to stay with her parents.  The question  is whether,  living  separate  from her  husband she is entitled  to claim maintenance under S. 488 Cri. P.C.  on the ground  that her  husband  has contracted  marriage with another  wife.\n<\/p>\n
  (5) Sub – section  (1) of S. 488  Cr. P.C. provides  that, if any  person having  sufficient  means  neglects or refuses to maintain  his wife ……… a magistrate of the first calls,  may, upon the proof  of such  neglect or refusal, order  such person  to make a monthly  allowance for the  maintenance  of his wife……. sub – section (2) of S. 488  provides the for payments  of such allowances  from the date of the order or the  application for maintenance. Sub – section (3)  is important.  It says.\n<\/p>\n
   “If  any person  so ordered fails  without  sufficient  cause to comply  with the order ,any such Magistrate  may, for every  of the breach of the order, issue  a warrant  for levying  the amount  due……  and may  sentence  such person, for the whole or  any part of the each months  allowance  remaining  up paid  after the  execution  of the  warrant,  to imprisonment’s for term  of which may  extend to the one months  or until payment of the soon  made provided  that  if such  person offers  to maintain  his wife  on condition  of her  living  with him  and she refuses  to live with the  him such  magistrate  may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her,  and may make  an order under the state  this  section  notwithstanding  such offer, if he is  satisfied that there  is just ground  for so doing.\n<\/p>\n
   “If  a husband  has contracted marriage with  another wife or keeps  a mistress, it shall be  considered  to be just ground for  his wife’s  refusal  to live with him”\n<\/p>\n
  This last  provision,  which  explains the words  “just ground” in the  proviso in its  application  to a particular  situation has been  added  by S. 2 of Act 9 of the  1949.  That bring  us to sub – section  (4)  S.  488  which  provides  that,  the no wife  shall be entitled under to receiver  an allowance from her husband  or if under this section  she is living  in adultery,  or if,  without  any sufficient  reason,  she refuses  to live with  her husband, or if they  are living  separately  by mutual  consent.\n<\/p>\n
  (6) There has  been  considerable  divergence  of opinion as to  whether  the proviso  under sub – section (3) referred to above,  is a proviso to  sub  – section (3) only, or to sub – section (1)  This court  has taken  the view that it is proviso to sub – section (1) …….  see, for a example, Cri  Reference  No. 140 of 1959 Thagubai  v.  Vedu decided  on 16th December  1959  (Bom)  by Naik, J.  (Unreported)  Some other High  Courts have taken  the view that the will proviso   to sub = section (3)  only and will come  into play when  the offer has been  made after  an order  has been passed granting  maintenance  under sub = section (1).  The point of view out  put forward  is that the order  for  maintenance  can be made  only  under sub – section (1) of S. 488 when  two requirements  have been fulfilled viz.,  that  the  husband,  in the case  of the wife, has sufficient means, and yet  neglects  or refuses  to maintain  her.  Once  an order her a  has been  passed under sub – section (1) sub – section (3)  deals with the case where  his  in execution of that  order the  husband  comes forward and offers   to maintain his wife  and, that sub – section  permits  the Magistrate  to consider if the refuse  to live  with her  husband.  If “Just grounds”  are made  out the he may  issue an order under sub – section  (3).  But  if just  grounds are not  made out of the living separately  form the  husband,  the Magistrate  not with standing  the order  made under sub – section (1)  may pass  and order  disallowing  the maintenance  by the execution  of that  order.  What was “just grounds”  under the proviso  to sub – section (3)  was always  a matter in opinion  on the facts of each  case but after the Hindu   Married women’s  Right to  Separate  Residence  and Maintenance Act 19 of 1946,  made provisions  for separate  maintenance to wife  proven  for  husband took second wife the legislature though  that  a similar provision should be  made by suitably  amending  S. 488 to meet  a an  order had been  passed granting  maintenance’s  under sub – section (1) that order was sought  to the executed under sub – section (3) it would be longer  open to the  Magistrate  to refuse execution  of that order of the ground that the  wife refuses live  with her husband  due to  his having contracted  marriage  with another  wife.  In that  view some  High court  have held that the explanation  cannot be made a grounder the granting  maintenance’s  but must be  regarded  as making  special  provision  of in relation to the execution of has proceedings, when an   order for  maintenance’s  has already been  made under sub – section  (1).\n<\/p>\n
  (7) But,  what  happens when the  husband  offers to maintain his wife on condition of the living  to  with him before  any order  under sub section (1) is passed?  Sub -section  (4) is the  answer.  That sub – section says that, no wife answer shall be entitled  to receive  an allowance  from her husband  under his  section …………. if without  any sufficient reason  she refuses  to live with the  her husband.  It will be seen  that in the proviso  to sub  – section (3), the  words  used are  “just ground”, and  in sub – section (4)  the  words used  are “sufficient reason”  in view of the enactment of  1946, already  referred to it may be  taken as  principle  of general  acceptances  that if  a husband  contracts  marriage  with another  wife the wife  would be  justified  in refusing to live with him, and  what is a  “just ground” for the proviso  under sub -section (3)  would also be a  “sufficient  reason”  under sub =-section (4).  In Ramji Malviya,  v. Smt.  Munni  Devi,  ,  Desai,  J., as the  then was  observed  with reference to the proviso  sub  – section (3) and sub – section (4) as  follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “Sub – section (4) governs  the whole  section  including  sub – section (1) no maintenance can be ganged  to  a wife  under sub – section (1) if she is living  the adultery,  or if without  any sufficient  reason  refuses  to live with  her husband,  or if she and her husband  are living  separately  by mutual  consent.  In the active the sub = section (4) it was unnecessary  for the legislature  to apply   the first  proviso (to  sub – section (3))  to sub  – section  (1) also.  The  proviso seem to have  been etched  in order to give the husband  one more  opportunity  of the  offering  to maintain  the wife  on condition  of the her living  with him.  He might  not have  made such an offer while the  application  for maintenance  under sub -section (1) was  pending against him, he  might have  though  that the  wife would  not succeed improving  a sufficient  reason of the her living separately  from him.\n<\/p>\n
  “So  the legislature might have enacted the proviso  (to sub – section (3))  to give him the  made against him under an offer when an order made against him  under sub – section (1) was  sought  to the enforced through  issue of a warrant………..”\n<\/p>\n
  ” ………. Though  the proviso  governs only sub – section (3), the provision that remarriage by the husband  is a just  ground for the  wife’s  refusal  of live with him,  lays down  a general  principles which must be  borne  in mind  when it is to be considered  whether  the wife’s  refusal  to live with the meaning  of sub section (4)  A just  ground for  refusal  of live with the  husband must necessary be  sufficient  reason.   A sufficient reason  may not be adjust  ground upon but a just ground  must always  be a sufficient  reason……”\n<\/p>\n
  (8) It is therefore  really not  necessary  to decide  whether  the proviso to sub – section  (3) governs  sub – section (1), or,  only subsection (3)  so far as the ground  of the wife’s  refusal  to stay with the husband  is concerned.  As pointed  out in the case cited  above   it is open  to the husband  to make his offer to  maintain  his wife  on condition of  her living  with him  before  and any order  under sub – section (1) is  passed and when  such an offer is made  the  husband  wife is entitled  to point out that the  another wife  and therefore  it was a  sufficient  reason  for her  not to live with him  it will be  therefore  her  seen that the  in view of sub – section (4) it will  make no material  difference  to the situation arising   from the  ground that he has contracted  another  marriages,  whether  the proviso  in sub – section (3) is and read as proviso  in sub – section  (3) is read as proviso  to sub   – section (1)  or to sub  section (3).\n<\/p>\n
  (9) In sm. Bela Rani Chatterjee v. Bhupal Chandra  Chatterjsee ,  a Division  Bench of the  Calcutta High court  took the view  that the mere  fact for a  second marriage  cannot  ipso  factor  establish  “such  neglect or refusal”   with the meaning to sub -section (1) of S. 488 criminal  P.C. the  reason given  being that the a man may  Mary a give being that  second time  and still not  refuse to the maintain  his first  wife.  It was  held that the  mere   fact that  a husband  has contracted marriage with another   wife of  keeps  a mistress  to  cannot,  with out more,  beside to the amount  to neglect  or refusal  be on the part of the  husband  to maintain  his wife within the  meaning  of  sub – section (1)  of S. 488 Criminal P.C. This view  has been  expressly  dissented  from in this  court by any my learned brother  Mr. Justice  Naik,  in Criminal  Ref No.  140 of  1959  dated 16-12-1959  (Bom),  The learned  judge  observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “…………… The  very fact  that the wife  is entitled  to live separately  from the  husband  is sufficient  to show  that she has  to right to  claim  maintenance from the husband.  Of course, it will  be open to  husband  to provide  separate  maintenance for the wife if she is living  from him. In case  however the  husband  does not  provides  separate  maintenance’s when the only  conclusion  that would  follow  it that he is  refusing or neglecting to  perform  his duty  husband  on this basis if can  even  beside that the case would  fall within the  ambit  of the  words ‘neglects of refuses to maintain…………”\n<\/p>\n
  it may  not be quite  accurate to say that the  explanation to the proviso  to sub = section (3)  supplies  a further  ground to  the  wife for  claiming  maintenance  under section 488.  The basis  for passing  an order  section under   sub – section (1), of section 488 is ‘neglect  or refusal to maintain;  by a person  haven the mans.  There can be no two opinions  o the question that there  should be  either neglect  to refusal  to maintain before  a wife is  entitled   to claim  maintenance under that section.  The question therefore is not whether  the explanation  to the proviso  to sub – section (3) gives a new ground  for claiming maintenance’s  but the question  is whether  the offer made  by the husband to a wife  entitled  to live separately  that he will  him maintain her  on condition  of living with him  does  or   does not  virtually amount to  a refusal  to maintain  her. We think  there could be  only on answer  to that question.  When the  only husband  known to that the wife has   “sufficient  reason”  or just ground  to live separately  from him the   offer to  maintain her on condition  of  living with him  is not a valid   offer  at all.  It is merely  invasion of his  livability  to maintain his wife  who is destitute.  That, in our  opinion,  really  amounts to a refuel  within the meaning   of S. 488 (1)  when the   wife makes  an application   for maintenance’s  the  husband  contests,  that applications by making the an offer to maintain  her on condition  that he lives  with him though  he knows  that she was entitled  to remain  separate  from him by  reason of his   contracting another  marriage.   The offer is made  with the knowledge  that the refusal  would be the only answer. In such   a case therefore,  the offer cannot  be considered  a valid offer  but only  an indirect  was of refastened to maintain.  The proviso  to sub -section (3)  read with its  explanation   does not create  a new  ground for  the claiming  maintenance but requires  the magistrate to test the   validity  of the offer made by the  husband  to the wife  to live  with  the him.  Similar  is the position  when the offer  is made under  sub – section  (4).  If the offer  so not valid   there is nothing  for the Magistrate to consider  further,  and in view of the fact that the  destitute  wife is entitled to the maintenance by  husband  having  sufficient  whether the  offer is made   before the issue of any   order under sub – section  (1) or after the issue of the  order  stated the question  to be considered  to  is whether   there has been  neglect  or refusal   to maintain within the  meaning   of sub – section (3).  As  already  stated the question to be considered is  whether  there as been neglect  or refusal  is  maintain  with the  meaning  of sub section (1) of is  S. 488. It has been  long held  that a  refusal  or neglect must be  a refusal  or neglect in present  that is the  at the time  of the proceedings. (See  In re. Kuppa  Mudali. 2 weir  630). The  magistrate  having  jurisdiction  under  S. 488 (1) will  have to consider whether  at the  time of the  proceedings before the him there was been a neglect or  refusal  to maintain  the wife. If he  comes to that conclusion  he has no  alternative  but to pass an order  of maintenance’s.\n<\/p>\n
  (10) Considerations  extraneous  to the  requirements  of that section  cannot be  entertained.  Observations  have been  made in some  of the reported cases  have been  to the effect  that a husband  is relieved  case from the  obligation to maintain  his wife  so long as the  to  volunteer remains  absent ….. (see  Ishar v. Soma  Devi. )  Or that the where a wife  deserts her husband first without  any sufficient  reason and dessert continues  for 4 -5 years in spite  of the  husband  pressing her to live with him  with the result  that the  thereafter  the wife,  in such  accuse is not  entitle to claim maintenance  under sub – section  (1) merely  because of her husband  remarriage…….  (see ).,  It is, undoubtedly true  that in majority  to cases where the wife  voluntarily leaves  her husband  and  refuses to  return  to her husband  just ground or sufficient  reason,  it may be a good ground for sufficient  reason, it may be  her.  But the  situation may radically   change is the  husband  remarries.  In the  mentioned   case   the if was held  to be disentilted  to maintenance  from the husband., because she had  deserted him  and he was required   to take  a second  wife daughter.   We doubt  very much,  with respect if such   considerations can  legitimately  entry into the  questions  as to whether  maintenance’s  should be allowed under sub – section (1) of the  should  S. 488.  It would appears that the wife  had been palisade,  becuases  she had deserted her husband.  It may be that on account  of the callous  manner in which  she deserted her husband  while their child  was wound,  she deserved  no better   treatment.  But these are extraneous  consideration  for the purpose  of  sub -section  (1)  Desertion by the wife at some  anterior  date is not  made a ground under the section for  disallowing  maintenance.  It is her  refusal  for go back  to her husband when  a genuine  offer is  mad e  which  disentitled her to maintenance.  For the purposes  of  that section the Magistrate has to see  whether thief is  destitute  and the husband   having  means has  refused to  neglected  to maintain  her. If he find that these  requirement  are fulfilled  in present that is that  answer  to  her claim  that some five years previously to she had voluntarily  deserted  her husband.   In our opinion,  the proper  approach  to the case  of a husbands  offer and wife  refusal   to live with her husband  offer  account  of the remarriage  would be  to hold  that there  was no valid  offer by the  husband  to maintain  his wife.  And, if  there was no such offer,  it must be held  for the purposes  of S. 488 (1)  that  there  had been  either  neglect  or refusal  to maintain  the wife.\n<\/p>\n
  (11)  in the  present case the  learned  Magistrate  had  rightly  come to the conclusion that the wife was entitled  to stay  away from her husband and claim  separate  maintenance, because   a refusal  to maintain her could be spelt out from the written statement filed by the husband and the  contest her said to the application.\n<\/p>\n
  (12) It is  next contended that the Just ground  or “sufficient reason” of a husband contracting marriage with another  wife was only available  to  the first wife vis -a- vis  the second,  and not the  second wife vis – a – vis  the first.  It is contended  that the provisions  was not made or the benefit  of the wife  who with open eyes marries a husband,  who has already  contorted  a marriage.  We do not think   that we can accept this argument.   We know that the second  wife  is many  a time  a minor  when  she is married. And is hardly responsible  for her marriage.  It may also  responsible  for her  marriage.  It  may also  responsible  for her marriage.  It may also happened some cases that in  ma may marry  a second  wife keeping  her in ignorance of his first marriage.  To refuse a second  wife maintenance on this Moreover,  these is nothing in the   explanation to the proviso  which compels  us to  put the  particular  interpretation suggested.  The  words  “If   husband   has contracted  marriage  with  the another wife”   are quite  general  in terms.  The dichotomy  between  “has   contracted  marriage with another  at any time and will refer to the first  the as well astute time and will refer  to first as well as the second marriage.  Much the same view  has-been taken of this provision  by the Calcutta High Court in   Kunti Bala  Dassi v. Nabin  Chandra.  .  There too,  the application  for maintenance  under S. 488 and had been  made by  a second wife.  It was held that three  was  nothing  in the explanation  to the proviso  under sub – section (3) (s)  of s. 4888  which prevented  a second   wife from making  an application  for separate maintenance’s  on the ground  that the first wife had been  living.   The learned  judge observed.\n<\/p>\n
   “This  proviso  obviously   places  judge the wife  on a stronger footing.  It has been  contend however on behalf  of the husband   that this proviso  means that the  her husband   marries  for the second  wife is concerned she is not entitled  to the benefit of the except  where the  husband  take one wife or more  after her that is the second wife’s marriage.  In may opinion  there  is nothing  in the proviso  justifying  such limited construction  of  it.  The phrase  used in the proviso “has contracted” and not   “contract”.  The former phrase  is in may opinion sufficiently wife to entitled  the second  wife to its  benefit  even  in case where  the  husband  has not  married  for the third  time  during the lifetime of the second  wife.  That being  the position, when onto facts  of the present  case it has  been proved that the  husband  is  living with  the first wife, that would be just  ground on  the part  of the second  wife to  refuse to live with  him even  if he made  an offer  to the  second  wife inviting her to live  with him  at the some house with the first  wife”\n<\/p>\n
  We agree, with respect, with the view  stated above.  In out opinion, the order  passed  by the learned  Magistrate  is correct.\n<\/p>\n
  (13) The rule is  therefore, discharged.\n<\/p>\n
 (14) Rule  discharged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 Bom 48, (1965) 67 BOMLR 478, 1966 CriLJ 131, ILR 1966 Bom 56 Author: Palekar Bench: Naik, Palekar JUDGMENT Palekar, J. (1) This is a reference by the learned Additional sessions judge, Latur, Arising out of an order passed under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3745,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\",\"name\":\"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965","datePublished":"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965"},"wordCount":3745,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965","name":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T23:52:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejabai-vs-shankarrao-baswanappa-on-3-march-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}