{"id":241097,"date":"2008-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-19T10:01:37","modified_gmt":"2017-03-19T04:31:37","slug":"sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                    (1)\n\n\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 3781 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     Sau. Geetabai w\/o Madhavrao Lokhande,\n     R\/o Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, District\n     Ahmednagar.                                               APPELLANT\n\n                VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     1.   Madhavrao s\/o Maruti Lokhande\n     2.   Sharad Bhanudas Lokhande\n     3.   Sau. Sangeeta Prabhakar Lokhande,\n          All r\/o Belapur, Tq. Shrirampur,\n          District Ahmednagar.                             RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n             .....\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the appellant.
\n     Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
             …..\n<\/p>\n
                                         [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]<\/p>\n
                               DATE : 26th & 27th November, 2008\n<\/p>\n
                               ———————————-\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGEMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.         Challenge     in   this    appeal     is     to     judgement<\/p>\n
     rendered     by     learned Civil Judge (S.D.),            Shrirampur,<\/p>\n
     whereby     Special Civil Suit No.             22\/2005 came to be<\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         Appellant     is   the    original     plaintiff.             She<\/p>\n
     filed     suit     for   separate maintenance         allowance          and<\/p>\n
     creation of charge of her maintenance allowance on the<\/p>\n
     properties        of respondent No.1\/defendant No.               1.      The<\/p>\n
     respondents       No.    2 and 3 are the original            defendants<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
     No.      2 and 3.          They have set up claim of adoption                      of<\/p>\n
     respondent No.            2 by the respondent No.             1.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           The appellant claims to be legally wedded wife<\/p>\n
     of     the     respondent No.1.          Her case before           the        Trial<\/p>\n
     Court was that her marriage with the respondent No.                                 1<\/p>\n
     was     performed         prior to about 48 years in               accordance<\/p>\n
     with     the       rites    and tenets of Hindu           religion.               She<\/p>\n
     resided        with him in the matrimonial house for about a<\/p>\n
     couple of years after the marriage.                    He drove her away<\/p>\n
     after        consortium of about two (2) years.                  Though           she<\/p>\n
     and members of her natural family had made the efforts<\/p>\n
     for     restitution
\n                           ig    of conjugal rights, yet, he did                       not<\/p>\n
     allow        her to resume the matrimonial relationship.                           He<\/p>\n
     deserted       her without any sufficient reason.                      He is        a<\/p>\n
     womanizer          and has squandered lacs of rupees in                       order<\/p>\n
     to     fulfil his sensual lust.               He is a well-off            person<\/p>\n
     having       agricultural        properties, house            property            and<\/p>\n
     movables, as described in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           The      appellant        further     asserted          that         the<\/p>\n
     respondents         No.      2    and 3 have no concern              with         the<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.      1.     However, in order to              grab         the<\/p>\n
     properties         of respondent No.1, the respondent No.                           2<\/p>\n
     is     now representing himself as an adopted son of                              the<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.      1    and    the    respondent          No.        3    is<\/p>\n
     representing         herself      as the daughter-in-law                 of       the<\/p>\n
     latter.        The appellant further alleges that though her<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     brothers        maintained her properly, yet, due to oldage,<\/p>\n
     now, they are reluctant to maintain her.                             She requires<\/p>\n
     medical        treatment due to oldage.                 She needs           separate<\/p>\n
     maintenance allowance of Rs.                    25,000\/- per month.                   The<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.      1    avoided to pay             such      maintenance<\/p>\n
     allowance          to     her inspite of demands.                He      is     making<\/p>\n
     haste     to       dispose of the suit properties.                       The     other<\/p>\n
     two     (2)     respondents are bent upon                   illegally           taking<\/p>\n
     over the properties of the respondent No.1 under false<\/p>\n
     pretext        that       they    are     his     adopted           son        and    the<\/p>\n
     daughter-in-law.             Consequently,             she filed          suit        for<\/p>\n
     separate        maintenance allowance and creation of charge<\/p>\n
     of      the<\/p>\n
                     maintenance         allowance           on      his        immovable<\/p>\n
     property.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         By       filing       written       statement         (Exh-22),            the<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.      1    resisted       the      suit.           He     denied<\/p>\n
     relationship            with the appellant.             He denied that                she<\/p>\n
     is     his legally wedded wife and that the marriage                                  was<\/p>\n
     performed          prior     to about 48 years of the                    suit.         He<\/p>\n
     contended          that the appellant and himself are                          members<\/p>\n
     of      ‘Taru’          community       and       there          was        previous<\/p>\n
     relationship            between     her       father      and      his      paternal<\/p>\n
     uncle.        He    asserted that his father died before                              his<\/p>\n
     birth    and thereafter, his mother brought up him.                                   He<\/p>\n
     asserted       that he and his mother were under protective<\/p>\n
     care     of his uncle during his minority.                         He owns seven<\/p>\n
     (7)     acres area of ancestral land.                     According to               him,<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     somewhere          in     1953-54,        his paternal uncle,            by     name<\/p>\n
     Vithal       and        some other relatives had given him                     offer<\/p>\n
     for     settlement          of his marriage with            the      appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The     appellant was then minor and was partly                          lunatic.\n<\/p>\n
     He     too     was minor at the relevant time.                    He     asserted<\/p>\n
     that     his mother refused to accept the proposal of his<\/p>\n
     marriage with the appellant.                    He further asserted that<\/p>\n
     inspite of the insistence of the paternal relatives of<\/p>\n
     the appellant, as mother did not budge and, therefore,<\/p>\n
     the marriage could not be performed.                      With the result,<\/p>\n
     the relations between both the families were strained.\n<\/p>\n
     Her     relatives thereafter had put spokes in settlement<\/p>\n
     of<\/p>\n
            his marriage with other brides and, therefore,                              he<\/p>\n
     remained       unmarried.            He     thus denied status            of     the<\/p>\n
     appellant          of his married wife.            He contended that her<\/p>\n
     relatives          had     obtained her thumb impression                  on     the<\/p>\n
     false plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     6.           The        respondents       No.    2 and 3 submitted              that<\/p>\n
     the respondent No.             1 has adopted the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     They further submitted that the appellant has no locus<\/p>\n
     standi         to       seek   maintenance         allowance           from      the<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.1.      The respondents, therefore,                  sought<\/p>\n
     dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           The        parties went to trial over issues settled<\/p>\n
     below        Exh-62 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.).                          They<\/p>\n
     adduced       oral        and documentary evidence in support                      of<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     rival       contentions.              The   Trial       Court           came    to<\/p>\n
     conclusion          that the appellant did not prove factum of<\/p>\n
     marriage.           The       Trial     Court       held that         she        is     not<\/p>\n
     legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1.                                The Trial<\/p>\n
     Court        repelled her contention that the respondent No.<\/p>\n
     1     drove       her     out of the the matrimonial                      home       after<\/p>\n
     couple        of years and that she had resided with him for<\/p>\n
     about        couple of years after the alleged marriage.                                It<\/p>\n
     is     for     such       a     reason    that the         suit       came        to     be<\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           The     points       for determination in this                      appeal<\/p>\n
     are :\n<\/p>\n
     (i)          Whether, in          the     facts      and       circumstances of<\/p>\n
                  the     present       case, the factum of marriage                         is<\/p>\n
                  proved by the appellant and the finding of the<\/p>\n
                  Trial      Court      in     this      context          is     improper,<\/p>\n
                  incorrect and illegal ?\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)         Whether, in          the facts         and     circumstances               of<\/p>\n
                  the     present       case, the appellant duly                      proved<\/p>\n
                  that         she    is     entitled          to    seek            separate<\/p>\n
                  maintenance          allowance and creation of                      charge<\/p>\n
                  thereof          under      section      18        of        the         Hindu<\/p>\n
                  Maintenance          and Adoption Act, 1956 on account<\/p>\n
                  of     neglect       and     desertion at           hands          of     the<\/p>\n
                  respondent No.             1 ?    If yes, at what rate ?\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.           Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          This        is somewhat unusual case in which                    after<\/p>\n
     long     drawn       period of about 48 years,               the        appellant<\/p>\n
     rushed        to    the     Court to claim        separate         maintenance<\/p>\n
     allowance.           It is somewhat peculiar case wherein                       the<\/p>\n
     appellant is old aged woman and so also respondent No.<\/p>\n
     1     is old man of about 74 years and they are                          involved<\/p>\n
     in     matrimonial          dispute without any past              history         of<\/p>\n
     dispute in the last 48\/50 years.                  Admittedly, proposal<\/p>\n
     of     marriage          of the appellant with respondent No.                       1<\/p>\n
     was mooted through his paternal uncle, namely, Vithal.\n<\/p>\n
     The     wife of said Vithal hailed from village Naur                            and<\/p>\n
     was     in     relation with natural family members                      of     the<\/p>\n
     appellant.           This admitted fact has some                 significance<\/p>\n
     in     the     context of the disputed question                   of     marital<\/p>\n
     status        of    the appellant.           There is also         no     dispute<\/p>\n
     about        the    fact that father of the respondent No.                          1<\/p>\n
     had     died while he was in the womb of his mother.                            The<\/p>\n
     respondent           No.      1    categorically         stated          in     his<\/p>\n
     pleadings          and     the affidavit that he and              his      mother<\/p>\n
     were     under       care     and protection of          his       uncle       i.e.<\/p>\n
     Vithal.            Needless       to    say,     said    Vithal          was    his<\/p>\n
     caretaker          and     used to look after his            welfare          after<\/p>\n
     death        of his father.        There is also no dispute                   about<\/p>\n
     the fact that the appellant did not marry anyone else,<\/p>\n
     nor     the        respondent No.        1 entered into wedlock                with<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     any     woman        during the entire period of                   48\/50       years.\n<\/p>\n
     Why     then the dispute cropped up at the old age of the<\/p>\n
     appellant          and the respondent No.                  1 ?   The answer           is<\/p>\n
     not     far        to     seek.       The dispute      triggered            off    only<\/p>\n
     because        the        respondent No.         2 claimed himself to                 be<\/p>\n
     adopted        son        of the respondent No.              1 and      there       was<\/p>\n
     eminent        danger that the properties of the                        respondent<\/p>\n
     No.     1 would be taken over by him.\n<\/p>\n
     11.           It     is    in     the wake of         above      admitted          fact<\/p>\n
     situation that the evidence of the parties needs to be<\/p>\n
     scrutinized             with     realistic approach.             The        appellant<\/p>\n
     adduced        oral<\/p>\n
                               and documentary evidence in support                         of<\/p>\n
     her     case.        So far as factum of marriage is concerned,<\/p>\n
     the     legal        presumption         arising           out   of     long       term<\/p>\n
     consortium           of    a man and woman is               unavailable.            The<\/p>\n
     learned            advocate       for    the      appellant           invited         my<\/p>\n
     attention          to     observations in          “Ranganath
\n                                                         Ranganath           Parmeshwar<\/p>\n
     Panditrao          Mali and other v.             Eknath Gajanan             Kulkarni<\/p>\n
     and another” AIR 1996 S.C.                    1290.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   1290      The Apex Court held\n\n\n\n\n\n     that     the       presumption available under section 112                            of\n\n     the     Evidence          Act can be raised when the man and                        the\n\n     woman        were found living together as husband and                             wife\n\n     for considerable period.                  The legality of the marriage\n\n\n\n\n\n     can     be     presumed          on    account        of    long      term        joint\n\n     residence          of a man and woman under the same roof.                            In\n\n     the     present         case, however, it is nobody's case                         that\n\n     the     appellant          and    the     respondent         No.        1    resided\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                                            (8)<\/span>\n\n     together        under     one roof for a              considerable              period.\n\n     What    is asserted by the appellant is that she resided\n\n     with    him      for     about        a       couple      of     years         and     was\n\n     thereafter driven out of the matrimonial house.                                     There\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n     is     hardly any evidence about her joint residence with\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     him,    except         and     save       her     own     statement            and     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     statement of PW4 Gangubai, in this context.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        The        marriage        under the Hindu law                 is     sacred<\/p>\n
     ceremony.         The        averments in the present                   case        would<\/p>\n
     show    that      the        marriage           was     allegedly           performed<\/p>\n
     somewhere        in     in     the year 1957.             The proof            of     such<\/p>\n
     marriage<\/p>\n
                     must have faded due to passage of such                               long<\/p>\n
     drawn    period.         The Trial Court was cognizant of                            such<\/p>\n
     fact    situation.             The Trial Court, however, seems                          to<\/p>\n
     have    made contradictory observations in this context.\n<\/p>\n
     It     is observed at fag end of para 24 of the                                impugned<\/p>\n
     judgement, as stated below :\n<\/p>\n
                “…She        has     only        stated that, there                 was      a<\/p>\n
                marriage          in between her and defendant No.                           1,<\/p>\n
                but        it remained unexplained that when                          mother<\/p>\n
                of     defendant No.             1 had refused the                  proposal<\/p>\n
                of her marriage with defendant No.                             1 then how<\/p>\n
                again this marriage was settled and performed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n                It     has     to     bear in mind that,                  there       is     no\n\n                cohabitation            in         between            plaintiff             and\n\n                defendant            No.       1     since         long.         In        this\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                                            (9)<\/span>\n\n                situation,           strong      evidence on the          point       of\n\n<\/pre>\n
                performance of the marriage is expected.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     It    is    surprising             to note, however, that          the      Trial<\/p>\n
     Court again, at the opening of para 25 of the impugned<\/p>\n
     judgement, observed :\n<\/p>\n
                “One         may    say that as marriage           is     performed<\/p>\n
                long back i.e.             prior to 48 years, evidence on<\/p>\n
                the      point       of    actual     performance           of      the<\/p>\n
                marriage           cannot be expected.         Certainly,           this<\/p>\n
                submission           may be impressive prima facie                  but<\/p>\n
                in<\/p>\n
                        present case when admittedly plaintiff                        is<\/p>\n
                not      residing with defendant No.                 1 since last<\/p>\n
                45 to 46 years, acceptable and strong evidence<\/p>\n
                on      the        point of performance of           marriage         is<\/p>\n
                expected……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     13.        It      is     difficult to appreciate what                 kind      of<\/p>\n
     “strong      evidence”          was expected by the learned                 Trial<\/p>\n
     Judge when due to passage of such long period, the eye<\/p>\n
     witness      account          of     the concerned priest          and      other<\/p>\n
     independent witnesses may not be available.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     14.        The      degree         of proof required in          matrimonial\n\n     cases      arising        out of the matrimonial proceedings                     in\n\n     the     Civil      cases and in respect of criminal                    offences\n\n     would      defer        from each other.        Mr.    Sapkal        seeks       to\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                                                (10)<\/span>\n\n     rely     on \"Bhaurao\n                  Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v.                                 The\n\n     State       of    Maharashtra             and another\", (AIR             1965       S.C.\n\n     1564).\n     1564             The        Apex      Court      considered         question           of\n\n<\/pre>\n
     culpability under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
     and    in     the          given      context,        held     that        the      word<\/p>\n
     “solemnized”            means in connection with a marriage,                           to<\/p>\n
     celebrate         and        in     due     form.    There      cannot        be     two<\/p>\n
     opinion      about           the      legal position that             in     criminal<\/p>\n
     cases,      likewise one for offence under section 494                                 of<\/p>\n
     the    I.P.C., strict proof regarding factum of marriage<\/p>\n
     including         performance of the requisite ceremonies                              is<\/p>\n
     required         to        be     proved.     The    ceremonies            which     are<\/p>\n
     required to be proved are :\n<\/p>\n
     (i)         invocation before the sacred fire, and<\/p>\n
     (ii)        saptapadi             i.e.     taking     seven       rounds         by the<\/p>\n
                 bridegroom             and     the bride jointly before                  the<\/p>\n
                 sacred fire.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     This        legal           position        is      explicit      in        view       of\n\n     observations            in        the treaties on \"Hindu Law\"                 (Mulla)\n\n     12th Edi.         at page 65.\n\n\n\n\n\n     15.         The        learned Judge of the Trial Court was much\n\n     impressed             by        the    fact      when    the      proposal           was\n\n     disapproved            by       mother of the respondent No.                  1,     and\n\n     therefore,            there       was hardly any possibility                  of     the\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                                             (11)<\/span>\n\n     performance of the marriage.                    It is important to note,\n\n<\/pre>\n
     at this juncture itself, that mother of the respondent<\/p>\n
     No.      1 was not in dominating position at the relevant<\/p>\n
     time.     The affidavit of the respondent No.                          1 seems to<\/p>\n
     have     been     improperly construed by the                     Trial       Court.\n<\/p>\n
     What     is stated in the pleadings and affidavit of                               the<\/p>\n
     respondent is that his paternal uncle – Vithal Balwant<\/p>\n
     Lokhande,        and relatives of the appellant proposed the<\/p>\n
     marriage         of    the       appellant          with     him,      but        while<\/p>\n
     considering          the     proposal,        his     mother         and     himself<\/p>\n
     noticed     that       she was minor and “ardhawat”                      (——-)<\/p>\n
     i.e.      having imperfect understanding or immature                               and<\/p>\n
     somewhat leaning towards silliness.                        It was for such a<\/p>\n
     reason     that       he     and      his mother       firmly        denied        the<\/p>\n
     proposal       for     the       marriage.      He     did      not,       however,<\/p>\n
     explain     as       to what kind of silliness was noticed                           by<\/p>\n
     him.      His     affidavit           (Exh-98) would          show       that      the<\/p>\n
     appellant       as     well as he himself were minors                        at    the<\/p>\n
     relevant         time.          One    has    to     consider          the        then<\/p>\n
     prevailing        atmosphere in a traditional Hindu society.\n<\/p>\n
     The     parties       are       members of ‘Maratha’              caste.          They<\/p>\n
     belong    to     ilk of agriculturists.                  The father of             the<\/p>\n
     respondent       No.        1    had     died      before       he     was      born.\n<\/p>\n
     Admittedly,       his       paternal         uncle     –    Vithal         Balwanta<\/p>\n
     Lokhande,       was the ‘karta’ of the joint Hindu                          family,<\/p>\n
     or at least was having significant role to play in the<\/p>\n
     matrimonial       matters.            His mother and he himself                   were<\/p>\n
     under    the protection and care of his paternal uncle –\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Vithal.            It is but natural that said Vithal                    Balwanta<\/p>\n
     Lokhande           could have the final word in the context                        of<\/p>\n
     the     marriage        which was to be performed.                   Obviously,<\/p>\n
     merely        because the appellant was not approved by                          the<\/p>\n
     mother        of     the respondent No.1, it could not be                       said<\/p>\n
     that     the marriage must not have been performed.                              One<\/p>\n
     cannot be oblivious of the fact that in those days, in<\/p>\n
     the     traditional          Hindu     families,         the      decision         in<\/p>\n
     context        of such marriages could be taken by the elder<\/p>\n
     male     members of the family and consultation with                             the<\/p>\n
     female members was a rare phenamenon.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        The<\/p>\n
                           testimony       of     PW   Geetabai         (appellant)<\/p>\n
     reveals        that        she    married the      respondent          No.1      and<\/p>\n
     resided        with        him    for about couple        of      years.         She<\/p>\n
     deposed        that after couple of years, he drove her                          out<\/p>\n
     of the matrimonial home.                   Her version purports to show<\/p>\n
     that     for        many     years,     she and     her     relatives           made<\/p>\n
     efforts        for     reconciliation, but he did not                    maintain<\/p>\n
     her.     The Trial Court considered certain admissions of<\/p>\n
     PW     Geetabai        while       rejecting       her    testimony.             She<\/p>\n
     admits, no doubt, that she narrated the facts shown in<\/p>\n
     the     plaint        as per instructions of her brother.                        Her<\/p>\n
     version        reveals that she was unable to locate village<\/p>\n
     panchayat          number of house in which respondent No.                           1<\/p>\n
     was     residing nor she was able to locate area thereof.\n<\/p>\n
     She     was        unable        to tell details about          direction          in<\/p>\n
     which     the entrance of his house is situated.                            Still,<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
     however,             she deposed that the house of the respondent<\/p>\n
     No.         1 comprises of two (2) rooms and also gave names<\/p>\n
     of         the        adjoining          house     owners.          She        admits,<\/p>\n
     unequivocally, that the respondent No.                           1 is person of<\/p>\n
     good nature and bears good character.                          She also admits<\/p>\n
     that       he        is not addicted to any vice.                It is         due        to<\/p>\n
     such       admissions             that    the averments        in     the       plaint<\/p>\n
     regarding immoral conduct of the respondent No.                                  1 are<\/p>\n
     held as baseless.                  It cannot be ignored, however, that<\/p>\n
     the     averments in the plaint are not originated as per<\/p>\n
     instructions                of     the appellant, but they are                 at        the<\/p>\n
     behest          of     her brother.          She cannot be stamped                  as     a<\/p>\n
     ‘lier’          due<\/p>\n
                                to such baseless allegations made in                      the<\/p>\n
     plaint.               Her        cross-examination        reveals         that           one<\/p>\n
     Gangadhar             Guru       was the priest and had performed                    the<\/p>\n
     ceremonies             of        the   marriage.    She states          that         said<\/p>\n
     Gangadhar             Guru is not alive.           The entire tenor of her<\/p>\n
     evidence             and     cross-examination would make                 it     amply<\/p>\n
     clear       that she is candid and did not make any attempt<\/p>\n
     to     support             the     unfounded       allegations        about              the<\/p>\n
     womanizing             of respondent No.           1 or his being a man of<\/p>\n
     bad     character.               Secondly, it can be gathered that she<\/p>\n
     is     a     woman          of normal understanding.                There       is        no<\/p>\n
     material on record to infer that she is immature, or a<\/p>\n
     woman       of        imperfect          understanding, or a          woman          with<\/p>\n
     element          of half mental growth (——-).                     So, it does<\/p>\n
     not     stand to reason that due to her being “——–“,<\/p>\n
     the     proposal of the marriage could be rejected by the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (14)<\/span><\/p>\n
     family        members       of the respondent No.1.               She         admits,<\/p>\n
     unequivocally, that when the marriage proposal was put<\/p>\n
     forth,        father of the respondent No.                1 was not alive.\n<\/p>\n
     She     further admits that then mother of the respondent<\/p>\n
     No.      1     had       disapproved the marriage                proposal.           As<\/p>\n
     stated        earlier,       this    admission         of      the           appellant<\/p>\n
     reveals        her       candidness.     It need not           be        reiterated<\/p>\n
     that     the       proposal was approved or rather                      mooted       by<\/p>\n
     paternal        uncle       of    the respondent         No.            1,     namely,<\/p>\n
     Vithal Balwanta Lokhande and he was the ‘karta’ of the<\/p>\n
     family.         So, his word could have carried much weight.\n<\/p>\n
     His     wife       was     in relation with         the      natural            family<\/p>\n
     members<\/p>\n
                    of the appellant and, therefore, the will                             of<\/p>\n
     paternal        uncle       of    the respondent No.                1        could   be<\/p>\n
     dominant        factor       at the material time.               These         ground<\/p>\n
     realities          ought     to have been properly considered                        by<\/p>\n
     the learned Trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     17.          Why such an illiterate and candid woman should<\/p>\n
     set     up     a     false claim of her status as wife                         of    the<\/p>\n
     respondent           No.     1 ?     There appears          no      satisfactory<\/p>\n
     answer coming forth.               There was no dispute between the<\/p>\n
     two     (2)     families         since      about    45\/46          years.           The<\/p>\n
     appellant          and     the respondent No.          1 are residing                at<\/p>\n
     village        Naur and Belapur, respectively.                    The         version<\/p>\n
     of     respondent          No.      1 would show that there                   was    no<\/p>\n
     dispute        in between his natural family members and the<\/p>\n
     paternal family members of the appellant before he had<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (15)<\/span><\/p>\n
     gone to see the appellant in pursuance to the marriage<\/p>\n
     proposal.            His     version reveals that village Naur                   is<\/p>\n
     situated           on northern side of the boundary of Vaijapur<\/p>\n
     town.\n<\/p>\n
     18.        The testimony of PW3 Smt.               Gangubai would show<\/p>\n
     that     she attended marriage between the appellant                           and<\/p>\n
     the     respondent No.            1.    Her version reveals that               the<\/p>\n
     marriage was performed somewhere in 1957.                        She deposed<\/p>\n
     that     the marriage ceremony was performed in front                            of<\/p>\n
     residential wada (house) of father of the appellant at<\/p>\n
     village Naur.              Her version further shows that the said<\/p>\n
     marriage<\/p>\n
                        was solemnized in accordance with the tenets<\/p>\n
     and     rites of Hindu religion.               She narrated that              holy<\/p>\n
     fire     (—–)           was    invoked, ‘kanyadan’         ceremony         was<\/p>\n
     performed           and     all    other requisite      ceremonies            were<\/p>\n
     performed            in     her    presence.      She     is     the      cousin<\/p>\n
     sister-in-law              of the appellant.     Her version            further<\/p>\n
     shows     that the appellant is recognized as wife of the<\/p>\n
     respondent           No.     1 since the time of said marriage                   by<\/p>\n
     all     the relatives.            Her testimony reveals that                after<\/p>\n
     couple        of     years of the marriage, the             appellant          was<\/p>\n
     driven        out     of the matrimonial house and,                therefore,<\/p>\n
     she     had        returned to house of her parents at                  village<\/p>\n
     Naur.         The cross-examination of PW Gangubai                     revealed<\/p>\n
     that she was unable to locate age of her eldest son as<\/p>\n
     well     as the exact year of his marriage.                     She was also<\/p>\n
     unable        to     locate       as   to how many      years      prior       the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (16)<\/span><\/p>\n
     marriage        of her second son was performed.                 She      could<\/p>\n
     not     give     details     of the period of marriage                 of    her<\/p>\n
     three     (3) daughters.         She was unable to locate age of<\/p>\n
     the     appellant at the time when the marriage                      proposal<\/p>\n
     was     under     consideration.        She volunteered,             however,<\/p>\n
     that     she     was not present at the relevant time.                       She<\/p>\n
     admits     that        her father-in-law by name Govindrao                   and<\/p>\n
     father of the appellant were cousins.                   The Trial Court<\/p>\n
     discarded        her testimony for the reason that she is an<\/p>\n
     interested        witness and also because she was unable to<\/p>\n
     give details about period of marriages of her sons and<\/p>\n
     daughters.        Her affidavit bears thumb impression.                      She<\/p>\n
     is<\/p>\n
            an illiterate old woman aged about 78 years.                          The<\/p>\n
     testimony        of PW Gangubai could not be lightly brushed<\/p>\n
     aside only because she could not locate as to how many<\/p>\n
     years     prior        the marriages of her sons and                daughters<\/p>\n
     were     performed.       The illiterate and rustic woman                    may<\/p>\n
     not     have immediately recollected such details                       during<\/p>\n
     course     of     cross-examination.           She      appears         to     be<\/p>\n
     natural witness having regard to her relationship with<\/p>\n
     the     appellant.         Had   she    been    a    tutored         witness,<\/p>\n
     probably,        she    would have come prepared with all                    the<\/p>\n
     details        of the marriages in the family.                Her      version<\/p>\n
     reveals        that    she was given gift as token of                  respect<\/p>\n
     (—–)        in the said marriage.        As a relative, may                 be<\/p>\n
     the cousin daughter-in-law of father of the appellant,<\/p>\n
     she was naturally the invitee and is the person having<\/p>\n
     knowledge of the marriage ceremony.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (17)<\/span><\/p>\n
     19.           The     factum of marriage between the                appellant<\/p>\n
     and     respondent No.           1 is further corroborated by                 PW4<\/p>\n
     Laxman.         His        version reveals that the          marriage         was<\/p>\n
     performed between the appellant and the respondent No.<\/p>\n
     1     in or about 1957.           He admits that he was about                 5\/7<\/p>\n
     years        old at the time of Independence of the                    Nation.\n<\/p>\n
     He     belongs        to ‘mang’ community and is inhabitant                     of<\/p>\n
     village        Naur.        His version reveals that the appellant<\/p>\n
     was     recognized           as wife of the respondent No.1.                  The<\/p>\n
     Trial        Court     discarded his testimony for the                 reasons<\/p>\n
     that     he was around 17\/18 years old at the time of the<\/p>\n
     alleged marriage.\n<\/p>\n
                            ig     The Trial Court noticed that due to<\/p>\n
     good     relations between natural family members of                          the<\/p>\n
     appellant,           he might have claimed to have attended the<\/p>\n
     marriage.            The     Trial Court observed that when                 there<\/p>\n
     were     other        elder persons of Desai community                 in     the<\/p>\n
     village,        there was no reason why such witnesses                       were<\/p>\n
     not examined in preference to PW Laxman.                       In fact, the<\/p>\n
     question        is as to why his testimony can be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
     It     is     difficult to say that because there were                       some<\/p>\n
     other witnesses available, the non-examination of such<\/p>\n
     witnesses        would destroy the credibility of PW Laxman.\n<\/p>\n
     He,     no     doubt, gave general statement as regards                       the<\/p>\n
     performance            of     marriage      without    elaborating            the<\/p>\n
     ceremonies           which    were   performed.          That       was       not<\/p>\n
     expected of him.             For, he is member of lower strata of<\/p>\n
     the     society i.e.           scheduled caste, and in those days,<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (18)<\/span><\/p>\n
     could        not have been prominently allowed to remain                                   in<\/p>\n
     proximity           of     place of the marriage.                      Moreover,         the<\/p>\n
     Trial        Court found that his age was 15 to 17 years                                   at<\/p>\n
     the     material time.                Needless to say, as an young                       boy<\/p>\n
     then he could have seen performance of the marriage as<\/p>\n
     such,        but        was not expected to take keen interest                             in<\/p>\n
     noticing           what        were the ceremonies which                   were       being<\/p>\n
     performed in the said marriage.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     20.          The          appellant              adduced       evidence          of      PW2\n\n     Nanasaheb.               He is an employee of District Cooperative\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     Bank.         His version reveals that there is bank account\n\n     of     the\n                              \n                       appellant with the Cooperative Bank,                            bearing\n\n     account           No.      4361.        He deposed that the bank                      record\n                             \n     indicated           that        the appellant had opened the                      account\n\n     prior        to        March,        1995.       He admitted,          however,         that\n\n     address           of the appellant is not shown on the original\n      \n\n\n     card     which he had produced.                      The name of the              account\n   \n\n\n\n     holder            is     shown        as      \"Sow.         Geetabai            Madhavrao\n\n     Lokhande\".               So also, PW5 Hemant corroborated the fact\n\n\n\n\n\n     that     a        saving account in District Cooperative                              Bank,\n\n     branch        at Veergaon bearing No.                      3071 stood in name of\n\n     the     appellant.             His version shows that on 18th March,\n\n     1986,        the        appellant          had     opened      the      bank      account\n\n\n\n\n\n     wherein,           name        of     her husband is           shown       as     \"Madhav\n\n     Lokhande\".               The        version       of PW     Hemant        corroborates\n\n     entries           in     the bank card (Exh-93).                  He      corroborated\n\n     recitals of letter (Exh-94).\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                                            (19)<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     21.          The testimony of PW Hemant is dislodged by the<\/p>\n
     Trial        Court        on the ground that identity of the                      bank<\/p>\n
     account           holder     is     not   duly    proved.           The    learned<\/p>\n
     advocate           for the respondents would submit that                       there<\/p>\n
     is     absolutely no evidence to show that the                          appellant<\/p>\n
     had     resided at village Babhulgaonganga under Vaijapur<\/p>\n
     Taluka.            He     would point out that           she     categorically<\/p>\n
     stated        that        she     had left village        Naur      since         many<\/p>\n
     years.            She did not know village Babhulgaonganga.                         As<\/p>\n
     stated        before, village Naur is adjoining the boundary<\/p>\n
     (—–)           of Vaijapur, which is a taluka place.                      It     is<\/p>\n
     probable<\/p>\n
                        that the bank account was opened in her name<\/p>\n
     by     her brother.              As the Bank’s branch is in               Vaijapur<\/p>\n
     Tehsil,           some address of such village might have                        been<\/p>\n
     given        due        to technical reasons.         For,       village          Naur<\/p>\n
     falls        in     Ahmednagar District whereas Tehsil place                          –\n<\/p>\n
     Vaijapur           comes     in     limits   of    Aurangabad           District.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, the appellant’s admission that she does not<\/p>\n
     know village Babhulgaonganga is of no much importance.\n<\/p>\n
     The     respondent No.             1 did not pin-point whether there<\/p>\n
     is     any        other     woman     of the      same    name       at    village<\/p>\n
     Babhulgaonganga.                 Nor any such possibility is                 stated<\/p>\n
     during testimony by the respondent No.                         1.\n<\/p>\n
     22.          There         are    entries in the voters list in                   the<\/p>\n
     year     1999 and 1998 (Exh-67 and Exh-68,                       respectively)<\/p>\n
     which        show that name of the appellant was recorded in<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (20)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the voters list as Geetabai Lokhande and her husband’s<\/p>\n
     name     was shown as Madhav Lokhande.                  These entries             in<\/p>\n
     the         public        record    cannot    be        ignored           without<\/p>\n
     substantial          reason.       The entries in the voters                   list<\/p>\n
     would        show that the appellant was recognized as                         wife<\/p>\n
     of     the     respondent.         Atleast it can be said that                  she<\/p>\n
     was     claiming herself to be his wife in 1998 and 1999.\n<\/p>\n
     The     appellant appears to be simple and candid                          woman.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     It     is     improbable that such an illiterate and                       rustic\n\n     woman        would    have set up a false claim of                  her      being\n\n     wife     of the respondent No.             1 when the public               record\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     viz.         voters list came to be prepared.                  She is not           a\n\n     scheming        woman.\n                           ig      No dispute was in contemplation                     at\n\n     the     relevant          time.     Obviously,      such       corroborative\n                         \n<\/pre>\n
     piece of evidence ought to be given due weightage.\n<\/p>\n
     23.          The     version of respondent No.               1 comprises of<\/p>\n
     bare     denial       to the factum of marriage.                  He      vaguely<\/p>\n
     stated        that due to impediment created by relatives of<\/p>\n
     the     appellant         in other proposals of marriage,                    those<\/p>\n
     proposals          had fizzled out and, therefore, he remained<\/p>\n
     unmarried.           He     deposed    that      the     members          of    the<\/p>\n
     community          used to avoid taking proposal of                   marriages<\/p>\n
     to     him     due    to such spokes put by the                relatives          of<\/p>\n
     paternal        family of the appellant.              He did not examine<\/p>\n
     any     witness       to     show that members          of     the      paternal<\/p>\n
     family        of the appellant had created any impediment in<\/p>\n
     respect        of his other marriage proposals.                   Needless to<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (21)<\/span><\/p>\n
     say, his remaining unmarried for such a long period is<\/p>\n
     probably        due        to the fact that the marital                     relations<\/p>\n
     between him and the appellant did exist and he was not<\/p>\n
     interested           in     any     other        proposal        thereafter              or<\/p>\n
     couldnot        get        opportunity          of second        marriage.              The<\/p>\n
     learned        Judge        of the Trial Court observed                     that        the<\/p>\n
     denial     of        the        respondent No.          1 was      firm.           It    is<\/p>\n
     observed :\n<\/p>\n
                “As        against this, DW1 i.e.                  defendant No.               1<\/span><\/p>\n
                is        firm       in his evidence that, there                    was       no<\/p>\n
                marriage in between him and plaintiff.                                In the<\/p>\n
                cross-examination                also, nothing on record                      is<\/p>\n
                brought          to     disbelieve          the version            of     this<\/p>\n
                witness.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     The     above        observations of the learned Judge                         of       the<\/p>\n
     Trial     Court           are     rather    insufficient             to     attribute<\/p>\n
     credence        to        the version of the respondent No.                          1    –\n<\/p>\n
     Madhav.         It        is of common knowledge that mere                         denial<\/p>\n
     need     not     be loosely worded.                An     empathetic           denial,<\/p>\n
     however,        by        itself does not give indication                      of       the<\/p>\n
     version        being        a gospel truth.            It is easy           to      offer<\/p>\n
     denial     to a fact and difficult to prove such a                                  fact.\n<\/p>\n
     The     cross-examination of DW1 Madhav (respondent No.1)<\/p>\n
     reveals        that        his averment that the appellant was                           of<\/p>\n
     imperfect        understanding             or    half-mad is not               at       all<\/p>\n
     corroborated              and     proved.         It      is       difficult             to<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (22)<\/span><\/p>\n
     appreciate        as       to how come that at the                  first         blush,<\/p>\n
     when     he     and        his mother had seen             the      appellant          on<\/p>\n
     single        occasion,       he came to conclusion that she                         was<\/p>\n
     half-mad.             He    himself          alleges       that       he     and     the<\/p>\n
     appellant        were both minors at the relevant time.                              The<\/p>\n
     interested        and unacceptable version of DW1 Madhav                               is<\/p>\n
     not     sufficient          to wipe out legal impact of the                         oral<\/p>\n
     and documentary evidence tendered by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     24.        In     matrimonial             cases, it is the duty of                   the<\/p>\n
     Court     to locate truth though the parties may                              indulge<\/p>\n
     in     blame     game       or attempt to hide some                   facts.         The<\/p>\n
     appellant<\/p>\n
                      though levelled false charge of                         womanising<\/p>\n
     to     the respondent yet very candidly did not subscribe<\/p>\n
     to     it in her oral evidence.                    However, the          respondent<\/p>\n
     No.     1 attempted to show that she was and is half mad.\n<\/p>\n
     This allegation is found to be untrue.                            The version of<\/p>\n
     the     appellant          is corroborated due to entries in                         the<\/p>\n
     voter’s        lists       and Bank record.            hence,         her     version<\/p>\n
     about     her marital status should have been accepted by<\/p>\n
     the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     25.        The     versions            of    DW2       Dattatraya           and      DW3<\/p>\n
     Bhanudas         pertain          to        execution      of       Adoption-Deed<\/p>\n
     (Exh-106).         It       is not necessary to see                   whether        the<\/p>\n
     respondent        No.         2     is      legally adopted           son     of     the<\/p>\n
     respondent        No.         1.         The fact remains that               for     the<\/p>\n
     first     time,        when        the Adoption         Deed      (Exh-106)          was<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (23)<\/span><\/p>\n
     brought           into        existence    on     17th       June,         2003,       the<\/p>\n
     appellant               decided      to    exercise           the          right        of<\/p>\n
     maintenance.                  Until such overtact to impair her                       right<\/p>\n
     arising           out     of     matrimonial ties, she              continued           to<\/p>\n
     reside        with        her     brothers       and     paternal          relatives<\/p>\n
     without murmur.\n<\/p>\n
     26.          The         very conduct of the respondent No.                       1     in<\/p>\n
     denying matrimonial relations with the appellant would<\/p>\n
     imply        that        he is unwilling to maintain her                     and       has<\/p>\n
     neglected           her.         In fact, the appellant came                  to       the<\/p>\n
     Court        at     the        behest     of    her    brother        whereas          the<\/p>\n
     respondent No.
\n                               ig  1 offered denial of her being his wife<\/p>\n
     at     the        behest of the respondents No.                   2 and 3.             The<\/p>\n
     appellant is entitled to claim separate maintenance in<\/p>\n
     view     of        the fact that she has been deserted                        by       the<\/p>\n
     respondent              No.      1 and he has neglected               to     maintain<\/p>\n
     her.         Her case is covered by provisions of Section 18<\/p>\n
     of     the        Hindu        Maintenance and        Adoption         Act,        1956.\n<\/p>\n
     Having        regard to the oldage of the respondent No.                                1,<\/p>\n
     it     will have to be said that the earning capacity                                   of<\/p>\n
     the     respondent No.              1 is impaired though he is                     owner<\/p>\n
     of     the agricultural lands.                  He admits that he owns 16<\/p>\n
     acres 8 gunthas land at village Belapur.                              He, however,<\/p>\n
     denied        that the entire land is irrigated.                         He owns         a<\/p>\n
     residential              house     of four (4) rooms.             One cannot            be<\/p>\n
     oblivious of the difficulties of agriculturists in the<\/p>\n
     context            of         present      times.       Considering             family<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (24)<\/span><\/p>\n
     background       of the parties, needs of the appellant                        in<\/p>\n
     her     old     age and probable agricultural income of                      the<\/p>\n
     respondent       No.     1,    it       would   be    appropriate            and<\/p>\n
     reasonable       to    fix an amount of Rs.           2000\/- p.m.              as<\/p>\n
     maintenance       allowance payable to the appellant.                        Her<\/p>\n
     claim     for Rs.      25,000\/- p.m.       is too much           exorbitant<\/p>\n
     and unreasonable.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     26.        It    may   be     mentioned here that             the     learned\n\n     advocate        for the respondent No.          1 placed reliance on\n\n     various authorities viz.            :\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     (i)\n                        \n<\/pre>\n
                Bhausaheb alias Sandu s\/o Raghuji Magar v.\n<\/p>\n
               Smt. Leelabai w\/o Bhausaheb Magar,<\/p>\n
               AIR 2004 BOM 283<\/p>\n
     (ii)      Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and others<\/p>\n
               AIR<\/a> 1994 S.C.135.\n<\/p>\n
                        S.C.135<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey<\/p>\n
               AIR 2000 CALCUTTA 109<\/p>\n
     (iv)      Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v.\n<\/p>\n
               Anantrao Shivaram Adhav and another<\/p>\n
               AIR 1988 S.C. 644<\/p>\n
     (v)       Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of<\/p>\n
               Gujarat and others<\/p>\n
               AIR<\/a> 2005 S.C. 1809<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (25)<\/span><\/p>\n
     It     is   not        necessary to discuss ratio of                    all       these<\/p>\n
     authorities             since     each     of        them    is      rendered         in<\/p>\n
     different         fact situation.             The ratio of either of the<\/p>\n
     authority         is     not on contextually applicable                      to     the<\/p>\n
     facts and questions involved in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     27.         For        the reasons aforestated, I am inclined to<\/p>\n
     hold     that the impugned judgement is unsustainable and<\/p>\n
     the appellant is entitled to seek separate maintenance<\/p>\n
     allowance         at     rate of Rs.          2000\/- per month.                Hence,<\/p>\n
     the     appeal is allowed.               The impugned judgement is set<\/p>\n
     aside.           Instead        of   dismissal         of    the      suit,         the<\/p>\n
     following final order is substituted.\n<\/p>\n
                 “The        suit    is decreed.           The    plaintiff            shall<\/p>\n
                 recover        maintenance allowance at rate of                         Rs.<\/p>\n
                 2000\/-        (rupees       two thousand) per month                    from<\/p>\n
                 the        respondent       No.      1.     The charge           of     the<\/p>\n
                 maintenance allowance is created from the date<\/p>\n
                 of     the        suit till the plaintiff is                  alive       or<\/p>\n
                 till        the     respondent No.          1 is alive, as              the<\/p>\n
                 case        may     be and is kept on the                agricultural<\/p>\n
                 properties          shown     in     para        No.        1     of    the<\/p>\n
                 plaint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     .           The         parties      to       bear      their         own          costs\n\n     throughout.\"\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n                       (26)<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                             [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]\n                                   JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     NPJ\/FA3781-08\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                              \n                      \n                     \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:05:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3781 OF 2008 Sau. Geetabai w\/o Madhavrao Lokhande, R\/o Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Madhavrao s\/o Maruti Lokhande 2. Sharad Bhanudas Lokhande 3. […]<\/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-241097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 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\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-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=\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-19T04:31:37+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-19T04:31:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4784,\"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\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-19T04:31:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 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":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 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\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-19T04:31:37+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-19T04:31:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008"},"wordCount":4784,"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\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008","name":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-19T04:31:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-geetabai-vs-madhavrao-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sau. Geetabai vs Madhavrao on 27 November, 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\/241097","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=241097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}