{"id":20445,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-06T21:57:37","modified_gmt":"2018-05-06T16:27:37","slug":"lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                SECOND APPEAL NO.543 OF 2004\n\n     Lata @ Bhagyashree w\/o Arunkumar\n     Sangole, aged 42 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n     Occu.Household r\/o Mangrulpeer,\n     District Akola                     .. Appellant\n                                        (Orig.Pltff.No.1)\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    (Note :   Orig.Plaintiff No.2\/Appellant\n              No.2 Subhadrabai w\/o Rajaram\n              Ganjare died during the pendency\n              of appeal, hence her name was\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n              deleted)\n\n\n              Versus\n\n     1.       Madhukar s\/o Rajaram Ganjare\n\n\n\n\n                               \n              (died) through his L.Rs. :\n\n     1(a)\n                    \n              Shakuntalabai w\/o Madhukar Ganjare\n              Age 50 years, Occu.Household,\n              R\/o Gita Nagar, Eklare's Wada,\n              Opp.Kunal Kunj Building Niwas,\n                   \n              Nanded.\n\n     1(b)     Manoj s\/o Madhukar Ganjare,\n              Age 22 years, Occu.Student,\n              R\/o As above.\n      \n\n\n     1(c)     Soni @ Mohini w\/o Suresh Korde,\n              since deceased deleted as per\n   \n\n\n\n              order dated 27.4.2007\n\n     1(d)     Manju w\/o Girish Kahat,\n              Aged 28 years, Occu.Household,\n              R\/o Nanalpeth Teli Galli,\n\n\n\n\n\n              Parbhani.\n\n     1(e)     Manisha w\/o Vishnudas Kulkarni,\n              Aged 30 years, Occu.Household,\n              R\/o Kamalkunj Niwas, Gita Nagar,\n              Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n\n     2.       Subhash s\/o Narayanrao Gudewar\n                                            .. Respondents\n                                           (Orig.Defedts.)\n\n     Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate holding for Mr.Vijay\n     Sharma, Advocate for the appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::\n                                             - 2 -\n\n\n     Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1 (b)\n     Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No.2\n     Respondent No.1 (a), 1(d) served.\n     Name of respondent Nos.1 (c) deleted.\n     Respondent No.1 (e) served through paper publication.\n                              .....\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                         CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                 Date of Reserving the Judgment : 2.7.2008\n\n                 Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 8.7.2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     1.        Challenge in this second appeal is to Judgment<\/p>\n
     rendered by learned Second Ad-hoc Additional District<\/p>\n
     Judge,     Nanded,        in an appeal (R.C.A.No.132 of                     2000)<\/p>\n
     confirming<\/p>\n
                       Judgment          and decree rendered by               learned<\/p>\n
     Joint     Civil     Judge           (J.D.),     Nanded in       a    suit       for<\/p>\n
     partition and perpetual injunction (Spl.C.S.No.375 of<\/p>\n
     1997).\n<\/p>\n
     2.        Subject matter of the dispute is a residential<\/p>\n
     house,     (which      will be referred hereinafter as                        “the<\/p>\n
     suit     house”)       bearing C.T.S.No.2931 as described                        in<\/p>\n
     claim      clause.            The     suit      house    is     situated         in<\/p>\n
     Chikhalwadi        area       at      Nanded.    One     Rajaram          Ganjare<\/p>\n
     owned     the     suit house.           He died somewhere            in     1991,<\/p>\n
     leaving     behind        him a son, a daughter and                  a     widow.\n<\/p>\n
     Deceased        defendant – Madhukar was his son,                      deceased<\/p>\n
     plaintiff       No.2      –     Subhadrabai       was     the       widow       and<\/p>\n
     plaintiff       No.1      – Lata, who is appellant herein,                       is<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
     the    only      married         daughter         left      by     said       Rajaram<\/p>\n
     Ganjare.         The        plaintiff’s         marriage         was      performed<\/p>\n
     somewhere        in 1975-76.          She resides with her                    husband<\/p>\n
     at Mangrulpeer (District Akola).\n<\/p>\n
     3.        At     the time of death of Rajaram Ganjare,                               the<\/p>\n
     suit     house        was occupied by the sole surviving                           male<\/p>\n
     member     Madhukar          (defendant) being his only son                          and<\/p>\n
     plaintiff No.2 – Subhadrabai being his widow.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        Appellant          –     Lata     and      her      deceased           mother<\/p>\n
     (Subhadrabai) filed suit (Spl.C.S.No.375 of 1997) for<\/p>\n
     partition<\/p>\n
                      and separate possession of the suit                             house<\/p>\n
     and    for perpetual injunction restraining defendant –\n<\/p>\n
     Madhukar        from alienating the suit house.                         They       also<\/p>\n
     claimed        mesne profits.             They asserted that                deceased<\/p>\n
     defendant        –     Madhukar and his wife                  alongwith          their<\/p>\n
     children        gave       ill-treatment          to      plaintiff           No.2      –\n<\/p>\n
     Subhadrabai.                Defendant       –      Madhukar          refused          to<\/p>\n
     maintain        the        mother.        Consequently, both                of     them<\/p>\n
     claimed        their       shares and filed the suit.                     The      suit<\/p>\n
     was    resisted by deceased defendant – Madhukar on the<\/p>\n
     ground     that        the plaintiffs had              relinquished              their<\/p>\n
     rights     in        the     suit     house in the            year      1989.         He<\/p>\n
     asserted        that       deceased Rajaram had executed a                         Will<\/p>\n
     deed     dated 1.8.1989 in his favour and had bequeathed<\/p>\n
     the    suit      house        to     him.       He     contended          that       the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs          were not entitled to claim any            partition<\/p>\n
     of     the suit house, which is a dwelling house of                      the<\/p>\n
     joint     Hindu family.        He, therefore, sought dismissal<\/p>\n
     of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        The       parties went to trial over certain issues<\/p>\n
     struck     below Ex.29 by the trial Court.               They adduced<\/p>\n
     oral and documentary evidence in support of the rival<\/p>\n
     contentions.             The     trial      Court        held          that<\/p>\n
     relinquishment         of   rights by the plaintiffs was                 not<\/p>\n
     proved.         The trial Court came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiffs cannot claim partition of the                   family<\/p>\n
     dwelling house in view of legal embargo enumerated in<\/p>\n
     Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act.                  The suit for<\/p>\n
     relief         of    partition     was,   therefore,        dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     However,        injunction was clamped restraining deceased<\/p>\n
     defendant       – Madhukar from alienating the portion                    of<\/p>\n
     suit     house, which was in the possession of plaintiff<\/p>\n
     No.2 – Subhadrabai during her lifetime.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        In    the first appellate Court, respondent No.2<\/p>\n
     –     Subhash       was joined as a party on       the      allegation<\/p>\n
     that     he has purchased a part of the suit house                     from<\/p>\n
     deceased        defendant – Madhukar.      The first          appellate<\/p>\n
     Court,     however, held that mere joining of respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2 – Subhash in the title of the appeal memo was of<\/p>\n
     no     consequence without amending the pleadings.                       The<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
     first     appellate        Court     noticed that no             relief        was<\/p>\n
     sought     as        against the subsequent purchaser nor                      any<\/p>\n
     ground     was added in the appeal memo in this                         behalf.\n<\/p>\n
     The     first appellate Court also noticed that transfer<\/p>\n
     of     a part of the suit house in favour of                      respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2     – Subhash was not supported by any                      documentary<\/p>\n
     evidence        nor due to such intervening change                      further<\/p>\n
     relief was claimed by the plaintiff\/appellant.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     7.        There       are subsequent changes, which                   occurred\n\n     during     pendency        and     before filing         of      the      Second\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Appeal.     First, original plaintiff No.2 - Subhadrabai\n\n     died      before\n                           \n                             filing     of   the       second       appeal        and,\n\n     therefore,           this second appeal is only at instance of\n                          \n     the     married daughter i.e.           appellant Smt.Lata                 alias\n\n     Bhagyashri.            Secondly,     after filing of             the      second\n\n     appeal,     original defendant No.1 - Madhukar died                            and\n      \n\n\n     his     legal        representatives       have       been       brought        on\n   \n\n\n\n     record.         Respondent No.1 (b) is the son of                      deceased\n\n     defendant        -     Madhukar     and is, therefore,              the      sole\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     surviving male member of the joint Hindu family.\n<\/p>\n
     8.        This       second      appeal was admitted on a                single<\/p>\n
     substantial          question of law, which is reproduced                       as<\/p>\n
     follows :\n<\/p>\n
     ”      Whether  legal bar u\/s 23 of the        Hindu
\n     Succession Act is lifted on account of amendment Act
\n     No.39\/2005 of the said provision and such amendment<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
     is retrospectively applicable as well whether due to
\n     subsequent development, namely death of the sole
\n     surviving male coparcener i.e. defendant No.1 –
\n     Madhukar, now such legal embargo stands declamped ?”\n<\/p>\n
     9.          Heard Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         The     two legal questions of significance                   need<\/p>\n
     consideration.            First, whether elimination of Section<\/p>\n
     23     of     the Hindu Succession Act under the                 Amendment<\/p>\n
     Act No.39 of 2005 now gives right to the appellant to<\/p>\n
     claim her share in the suit house at par with that of<\/p>\n
     deceased Madhukar, who was her brother.                     Secondly, it<\/p>\n
     needs<\/p>\n
     Madhukar,
\n                  to<\/p>\n
                         be examined whether due to death<\/p>\n
                        now the bar created under Section 23 would
\n                                                                        of      said<\/p>\n
     not     be        attracted     and that the partition           could       be<\/p>\n
     effected in respect of the suit house.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         Though the deceased defendant alleged that the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs          had     relinquished    their rights,            yet     he<\/p>\n
     could        not establish such a plea.          Nor he had pressed<\/p>\n
     into     service          the   issue   regarding       his      exclusive<\/p>\n
     ownership on account of the Will deed executed by his<\/p>\n
     father        on 1st August 1989.          Obviously, it would              not<\/p>\n
     be necessary to go into such questions in this second<\/p>\n
     appeal.           Nor they have been raised by learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     12.         Mr.Gangapurwala,        holding for Mr.Sharma, would<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 7 –<\/p>\n
\n\n     submit     that the intervening changes in the facts and\n\n     the   law may be considered.               He strongly relied                 upon\n\n     \"S.Sai     Reddy        v.    S.Narayan Reddy and others\"                   (1991\n\n     AIR   SCW       488).\n                     488)     The Apex Court considered effect                        of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n     clause     (ii) of Section 29A of the Amendment Act.                             It\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n<\/pre>\n
     is held that the intervening event, which gave shares<\/p>\n
     to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 (female members) had the<\/p>\n
     effect     of     varying       shares of the parties                like       any<\/p>\n
     supervening development.                The Apex Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
              ”       Since      the      legislation    is
\n              beneficial and placed on the statute
\n              book<\/p>\n
                      with     the    avowed    object
\n              benefiting women which is a vulnerable
\n              section of the society          in all its
\n                                                         of<\/p>\n
              stratas, it is necessary to give a<\/p>\n
              liberal effect to it. For this reason
\n              also, we cannot equate the concept of
\n              partition that he legislature has in
\n              mind in the present case with a mere
\n              severance     of    the    status    of   the
\n              joint-family which can be effected by an<\/p>\n
              expression of a mere desire by a family
\n              member to do so. The partition that the<\/p>\n
              legislature has in mind in the present
\n              case    is    undoubtedly      a    partition
\n              completed in all respects and which has
\n              brought about an irreversible situation.
\n              A    preliminary decree       which    merely<\/p>\n
              declares shares which are themselves
\n              liable to change does not bring about
\n              any irreversible situation. Hence, we
\n              are of the view that unless a partition
\n              of the property is effected by metes and
\n              bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived
\n              of the benefits conferred by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
              Any other view is likely to deprive a
\n              vast section of the fair sex of the
\n              benefits conferred by the amendment.”\n<\/p>\n
     13.       Clinching          question     is   as        to     whether         the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
     amended       provision       contained in Section 29A              of        the<\/p>\n
     Hindu     Succession         Act can be invoked in the              present<\/p>\n
     case.         The    law,     which      existed     prior        to      such<\/p>\n
     amendment,       may be briefly stated.            Section 23 of the<\/p>\n
     Hindu     Succession         Act, 1956 is a        special        provision<\/p>\n
     respecting dwelling house.               It reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
             “23.   Special     provision    respecting
\n             dwelling-houses – Where a Hindu intestate
\n             has left surviving him or her both male
\n             and female heirs specified in class I of
\n             the Schedule and his or her property
\n             includes a dwelling-house wholly occupied<\/p>\n
             by members of his or her family, then,
\n             notwithstanding anything contained in this<\/p>\n
             Act, the right of any such female heir to
\n             claim partition of     the dwelling-house
\n             shall not arise until the male heirs
\n             choose to divide their respective shares<\/p>\n
             therein;   but the female heir shall be
\n             entitled to a right of residence therein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             .      Provided that where such female
\n             heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled
\n             to   a   right of     residence   in   the<\/p>\n
             dwelling-house only if she is unmarried or
\n             has been deserted by or has separated from<\/p>\n
             her husband or is a widow.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.     A plain reading of proviso appended to Section<\/p>\n
     23    would    make        manifestly      clear    that      a     married<\/p>\n
     daughter      was     not     given     right of    residence            in    a<\/p>\n
     dwelling-house         unless    she      was deserted by           or     had<\/p>\n
     separated      from        her husband.     Needless to          say,      the<\/p>\n
     appellant’s         case    is not covered under           the      proviso<\/p>\n
     appended      to the Section.          In her lifetime,           deceased<\/p>\n
     Subhadrabai used to reside in the suit house.                          It was<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
     the     view     of     Bombay High Court that             where        a     sole<\/p>\n
     surviving        male     coparcener          is   in    possession             of<\/p>\n
     dwelling-house,           the     legal       embargo      would        not     be<\/p>\n
     applicable.            This     view       expressed     in      “Anant        vs.<\/p>\n
     Janaki        Bai” (AIR 1984 Bombay 319) is disapproved                         by<\/p>\n
     the      Apex         Court      in         “Narashimaha         Murthy         v.\n<\/p>\n
     Smt.Susheelabai           and others” (AIR 1996 SUPREME                      COURT<\/p>\n
     1826).\n<\/p>\n
     1826)          The     Apex Court, in clear terms,                held       that<\/p>\n
     Section        23 prohibits partition of dwelling house                         of<\/p>\n
     the deceased Hindu male or female intestate, who left<\/p>\n
     surviving       sole     male heir and female heir\/heirs                       and<\/p>\n
     the     right to claim partition by female heir is                           kept<\/p>\n
     in<\/p>\n
            abeyance and deferred during the life of the male<\/p>\n
     heir     or     till he partitions or ceases to occupy                         and<\/p>\n
     enjoy     it     or lets it out.            The Apex     Court        observed<\/p>\n
     that     the     legislature          intended      that       during          the<\/p>\n
     life-time       of surviving male heir(s) of the                      deceased<\/p>\n
     Hindu     intestate, he\/they should live in the parental<\/p>\n
     dwelling       house as partition thereof at the behest of<\/p>\n
     the      female         heir    would         render    the      male        heir<\/p>\n
     homeless\/shelterless.                 It    was in order         to     prevent<\/p>\n
     hardship       and unjust situation, the special provision<\/p>\n
     was     made     in     Section       23 of     impartibility           of     the<\/p>\n
     dwelling house.          The Apex Court further observed that<\/p>\n
     Section        44 of the Transfer of Property Act and                        also<\/p>\n
     Section         4(1)    of     the         Partition     Act          prevented<\/p>\n
     fragmentation          of the ancestral dwelling house.                        The<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
     purpose        of        law     is    to prevent    brooding         sense       of<\/p>\n
     injustice.\n<\/p>\n
     15.       It     is       argued that due to death               of     original<\/p>\n
     defendant            –         Madhukar,    the     legal       bar     is       now<\/p>\n
     inapplicable.              I do not agree.          Not only defendant –\n<\/p>\n
     Madhukar        but his son (respondent No.1-(b) Manoj) are<\/p>\n
     the     male        members,          who were residing         in    the      suit<\/p>\n
     house.         The residence of respondent No.1(b) Manoj in<\/p>\n
     the     suit house would continue the process of keeping<\/p>\n
     right of the appellant in abeyance.                       She cannot claim<\/p>\n
     partition        in       the      dwelling house when the              same      is<\/p>\n
     occupied        by<\/p>\n
                               respondent No.1 (b) – Manoj                and     other<\/p>\n
     members        of the family.            I am of the opinion that due<\/p>\n
     to     death of Madhukar, there will be no change in the<\/p>\n
     legal position qua the present appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     16.       Coming to the question of effect of the change<\/p>\n
     due     to Amendment Act No.39 of 2005, it is                         important<\/p>\n
     to note that Section 29A is added under Chapter II-A.\n<\/p>\n
     No     doubt,        it        gives    equal rights      to     daughter         in<\/p>\n
     coparcenery           property         irrespective        of      limitations<\/p>\n
     contained        in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession                          Act.\n<\/p>\n
     By     the amended Act, Section 23 and Section 24 of the<\/p>\n
     Hindu     Succession             Act, 1956 have been omitted.                    The<\/p>\n
     omissions of these two Sections, of course, has nexus<\/p>\n
     with     introduction of Section 29A under Chapter II-A.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
     Section        23     stands omitted under the amended Act                         in<\/p>\n
     order     to        pave     the way for effective              operation          of<\/p>\n
     Section 23A.           The amended provision of Section 29A is<\/p>\n
     introduced           under        Chapter    II-A, which is            part       and<\/p>\n
     parcel        of     Chapter II of the Hindu                Succession          Act,<\/p>\n
     which     contains Section 23.                   The provision of Section<\/p>\n
     29A,     as        applicable        to     the    State     of     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     reveals        that        the Chapter II-A shall not apply to                       a<\/p>\n
     daughter           married before the date of the commencement<\/p>\n
     of     the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act,<\/p>\n
     1994.         Thus,        the daughters, who had married                   before<\/p>\n
     the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Amendment)<\/p>\n
                          Act, 1994 are kept outside the beneficial<\/p>\n
     zone     of        the amended provision of Section                    23A.        In<\/p>\n
     other     words,        the        provision        would     be       available<\/p>\n
     prospectively.               In     the present case, the              appellant<\/p>\n
     was     married much prior to commencement of the                             Hindu<\/p>\n
     Succession           (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994 (MAH XL<\/p>\n
     of 1994).           Hence, she cannot claim benefit of Section<\/p>\n
     29A.      The omission of Section 23 under the Amendment<\/p>\n
     Act     does not open floodgate to the ineligible female<\/p>\n
     heirs     for        the     purpose        of    seeking     partition            of<\/p>\n
     dwelling           house.     Their rights are still in                  abeyance<\/p>\n
     until     the male heir is in occupation of the dwelling<\/p>\n
     house.         Under these circumstances, the appellant                            is<\/p>\n
     not entitled to claim partition of the suit house.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                               – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
     17.    In   the result, the second appeal fails and is<\/p>\n
     accordingly dismissed.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                ( V.R.KINGAONKAR )
\n                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
     (vvr\/sa543.04)<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.543 OF 2004 Lata @ Bhagyashree w\/o Arunkumar Sangole, aged 42 years, Occu.Household r\/o Mangrulpeer, District Akola .. Appellant (Orig.Pltff.No.1) (Note : Orig.Plaintiff No.2\/Appellant No.2 Subhadrabai w\/o […]<\/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-20445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-06T16:27:37+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T16:27:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2049,\"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\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T16:27:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-06T16:27:37+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T16:27:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":2049,"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\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008","name":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T16:27:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lata-bhagyashree-vs-madhukar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lata @ Bhagyashree vs Madhukar on 8 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/20445","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=20445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}