{"id":40271,"date":"2009-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-19T21:45:54","modified_gmt":"2017-04-19T16:15:54","slug":"nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n                       SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 1990\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n     1. Nagorao Bhujanga More                           ]..Appellants\n                                                           (original\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     2. Venkati Nagorao More                               def.1 & 2)\n\n\n                                    VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     1. Premalabai w\/o. Digamber                        ]..Respondents\n        (deleted as per order dated                        (original\n         9th August, 1991)                                  plaintiff)\n\n     2. Mahananda d\/o. Digambar,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n        Aged 6 years, minor under\n        guardianship of maternal uncle\n                       \n        Balaji Shankar Jadhav.\n\n\n     Shri P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants.\n                      \n     Shri H.H. Padalkar h\/f. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate\n     for the respondent.\n\n\n                                     CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                               RESERVED ON : 05.02.2009<\/p>\n
                             PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2009<\/p>\n
     J U D G M E N T :-\n<\/p>\n
     .          This   is a second appeal preferred by original<\/p>\n
     defendant Nos.      1 and 2 who have challenged the decree<\/p>\n
     for   partition     and separate possession passed by                   the<\/p>\n
     learned     4th   Additional    District      Judge,        Nanded        in<\/p>\n
     Regular     Civil Appeal No.     92 of 1984 decided on                 26th<\/p>\n
     October,     1989 and thereby reversing the judgment                    and<\/p>\n
     decree     dismissing   the    suit, passed by           the     learned<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (   2     )<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge, Junior Division, Biloli, in Regular Civil<\/p>\n
     suit No.302 of 1982 decided on 28th February, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          It      is no more disputed that one Digambar More<\/p>\n
     was     resident          of village Ratoli, Tal.                  Biloli,        Dist.\n<\/p>\n
     Nanded.           Appellant        No.1         Nagorao       is      father         and<\/p>\n
     appellant          No.2        Venkati is brother of said                  Digambar.<\/p>\n
\n\n     The     family          owns     suit-lands           described        in       plaint\n\n     paragraph              No.1.           It       is         case          of          the\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     plaintiff\/respondent               No.1         - Premalabai that she                was\n\n     legally\n\n     Mahananda\n                      wedded\n\n                        was\n                              igborn\n                                    wife of Digambar and respondent\n\n                                            to them.       Digambar        died      in\n                                                                                         No.2\n\n                                                                                            an\n                            \n     accident           on     25th     May,         1982.      Relation            between\n\n     respondent          No.1 Premlabai and Digambar were                          strained\n\n<\/pre>\n
     during lifetime of Digambar and as a result respondent<\/p>\n
     No.1     was driven out of the house of Digambar and                                 she<\/p>\n
     was living with her mother.                      She filed application No.<\/p>\n
     40     of     1979       for     maintenance under            Section          125     of<\/p>\n
     Cr.P.C.           against        Digambar in the Court of                  J.M.F.C.,<\/p>\n
     Biloli.           In     that     petition        Digambar         admitted          that<\/p>\n
     respondent              No.1     was     his      wife.       The      matter         was<\/p>\n
     compromised            and the respondent was taken by                        Digambar<\/p>\n
     to      his       house.         Again      respondent-Premalabai                    was<\/p>\n
     ill-treated            and therefore she left the house.                          After<\/p>\n
     death       of     Digambar        she      tried to get           share       in     the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (    3    )<\/p>\n
     property.         She     issued notice on 8th                October,          1982;\n<\/p>\n
     but     the notice was not replied and therefore suit                                is<\/p>\n
     filed for partition and separate possession.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         The appellants who were defendants appeared in<\/p>\n
     the     suit and filed their written statement jointly at<\/p>\n
     Exh.21       and        denied          relationship                of      present<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiff with Digambar.                        It is stated that<\/p>\n
     Digambar     had first married with Sheshabai –                            daughter<\/p>\n
     of     Govindrao        resident       of      Hiparga,         Tal.        Biloli.<\/p>\n
\n\n     Digambar\n\n     married\n                  could\n\n                 one\n                         ig    not\n\n                         Jijabai d\/o.\n                                      adjust        with      Sheshabai\n\n                                                 Narayan Hiparaga about\n                                                                                 and      so\n\n                                                                                          14<\/span>\n                       \n     years     before filing written statement on                         27.08.1983.\n\n     Digambar     never married respondent No.1-Premlabai                               and\n\n     respondent        No.2 was not born to Digambar.                         It is also\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     alleged in the written statement that on 7th February,<\/p>\n
     1979     Digambar obtained Rs.5000\/- from appellant                               No.1<\/p>\n
     and     orally     relinquished          his     right        in     the      family<\/p>\n
     property     and therefore Digambar ceased to have                              right<\/p>\n
     in the property.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     4.         The     Trial     Court held while               answering           issue\n\n\n\n\n\n     No.1     that respondent No.1-Premla failed to prove that\n\n     she     was legally wedded wife of Digambar.                         However, it\n\n     is      proved     that     respondent           No.2       is      daughter         of\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>\n                                               (    4     )\n\n\n\n\n     Digambar.              However,          no         share           was        given         to\n\n     plaintiff\/respondent                No.2          as she was not               legitimate\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n     daughter          of Digambar.           The Trial Court has held                         that\n\n     the         marriage          of    respondent               No.1\/Premlabai                with\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n     Digambar          was        not   proved         to     be        marriage          validly\n\n<\/pre>\n
     solemnised, as essential ceremonies were not performed<\/p>\n
     and         the        marriage       was         performed           by       Jangam          –\n<\/p>\n
     Shivmurtiappa.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           The        Trial      Court held while                 answering           issue<\/p>\n
     No.3<\/p>\n
     his<\/p>\n
              that there was no relinquishment by Digambar<\/p>\n
             share in the property by accepting Rs.5000\/- that
\n                                                                                                  of<\/p>\n
     finding of fact was not challenged before the District<\/p>\n
     Court       even by way of counter-claim and in-fact                                    there<\/p>\n
     is     no     trustworthy           evidence to show that                      there        was<\/p>\n
     relinquishment.                 Appellant          No.1        –    Nagorao          in     his<\/p>\n
     cross-examination                  has       stated          that       Digambar            had<\/p>\n
     executed document about relinquishment of his right in<\/p>\n
     presence          of     witnesses,           but       no     such       document          was<\/p>\n
     produced.              Merely      because son has taken                     some         money<\/p>\n
     from father itself would not be relinquishment.                                         There<\/p>\n
     is     no     substantially              reliable evidence.                    The        Trial<\/p>\n
     Court did not believe said version.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     6.           On        the    other      hand        the       learned         Additional\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>\n                                           (     5   )\n\n\n\n\n     District         Judge has held that there is presumption                            of\n\n     valid       marriage         and   necessary onus           to      prove       legal\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n<\/pre>\n
     marriage         is        discharged    by        respondent        No.1.         The<\/p>\n
     learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit for<\/p>\n
     partition and separate possession.                       The Court declared<\/p>\n
     that     the      respondents           have 1\/3rd share in              the      suit<\/p>\n
     properties.\n<\/p>\n
     7.          It        is     argued that the First Appellate                    Court<\/p>\n
     has     not properly considered the evidence and                            wrongly<\/p>\n
     came<\/p>\n
              to the conclusion that the marriage of<\/p>\n
     with respondent No.1 – Premala was legal and void.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                Digambar<\/p>\n
                                                                                          It<\/p>\n
     is     argued         that Sheshabai was first wife and                     Jijabai<\/p>\n
     was     second wife of Digambar.                   Jijabai was examined in<\/p>\n
     the     Court         and there was no reason to disbelieve                        her<\/p>\n
     evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     8.          As        per order passed on 25.01.1991 the                      Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal       is admitted on the ground Nos.                      2 to 7, 9         and<\/p>\n
     14     of    the       appeal      memo.       To    put    it      briefly        the<\/p>\n
     substantial            question     of     law which        arises         in     this<\/p>\n
     matter is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “Did respondent No.1 prove that she is legally<\/p>\n
                 wedded wife of Digambar?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            (    6     )\n\n\n\n\n     9.         The        learned advocate for the respondents                          has\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     pointed        out certain documents produced on record.                              He\n\n     brought        to my notice certified copy of plaint bearing\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Criminal        Case No.         2511 of 1979 filed in the Court of\n\n     J.M.F.C.,        Biloli.         It was a private complaint                     lodged\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     by    present respondent No.1 - Premala against deceased\n\n     Digambar,        Jijabai         (who is said to be second wife                       as\n\n<\/pre>\n
     per written statement filed by present appellants) and<\/p>\n
     other     two        persons.         The offence alleged               was      under<\/p>\n
     Section<\/p>\n
     is    stated         to<\/p>\n
                    494 r\/w 34 of the I.P.C.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n                                 be   06.04.1979.         It\n                                                             The date of offence\n\n                                                                 is     alleged         that\n                          \n     respondent           No.1 Premlabai was legally wedded wife                           of\n\n     Digambar        and       their marriage was            subsisting.              Their\n\n     marriage        was performed four years before filing                             said\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     complaint on 05.05.1979.                  From said wed-lock Mahananda<\/p>\n
     (respondent           No.2) was born and she was two years old.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The relations between respondent No.1 and Digambar had<\/p>\n
     become        strained       and she was driven out of the                       house<\/p>\n
     and     she     was        residing       with       her    parents         and       on<\/p>\n
     06.04.1979           Digambar       had remarried Jijabai                 and      thus<\/p>\n
     committed        offence         of   bigamy.         It     is      clear         that<\/p>\n
     thereafter           verification         of Premala was recorded                   and<\/p>\n
     process        was        issued.     It appears that thereafter                    for<\/p>\n
     absence        of Premala and her counsel the complaint came<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (    7     )<\/p>\n
     to     be    dismissed on 02.07.1979.                       It is argued               before<\/p>\n
     this     Court         that     this complaint clearly                      shows        that<\/p>\n
     Premala      had        married           Digambar          before          marriage       of<\/p>\n
     Digambar          with        Jijabai          and        she     had         immediately<\/p>\n
     approached            Court     within          a month         stating        that       the<\/p>\n
     offence      of        bigamy        was committed               on     06.04.1979         by<\/p>\n
     Digambar         by     marrying           Jijabai.          The        complaint         was<\/p>\n
     lodged      on        05.05.1979.             It is worth noting               that       the<\/p>\n
     witness      of present appellants D.W.2-Yadavrao More who<\/p>\n
     is     cousin of appellant No.1 specifically admitted                                      in<\/p>\n
     06.04.1979.\n<\/p>\n
     cross-examination that Jijabai had married Digambar on<\/p>\n
                             There        is       no      reason          why     this      close<\/p>\n
     relative         should        give       such admission unless                    it     was<\/p>\n
     true.       Respondent No.1 – Premala stated that after she<\/p>\n
     lodged      said        complaint             and        filed        application         for<\/p>\n
     maintenance,            there        was compromise and she was                         taken<\/p>\n
     for     co-habitation by Digambar to his house.                                   At     this<\/p>\n
     stage,      we        may     also        note       that       on     some       day    i.e.<\/p>\n
     05.05.1979            respondent          No.1           Premalabai         filed        Cri.\n<\/p>\n
     Misc.        Application No.                  40 of 1979 under Section                    125<\/p>\n
     of     the Cr.P.C.            before the J.M.F.C., Biloli                         claiming<\/p>\n
     maintenance for herself and respondent No.2.                                      There is<\/p>\n
     also     certified            copy        of written statement                 filed       by<\/p>\n
     Digambar         in     which        he admitted that he                    had    married<\/p>\n
     respondent No.1 – Premala and claimed that she was his<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (   8      )<\/p>\n
     second       wife.      He went to the extent of denying                         that<\/p>\n
     respondent No.2 Mahananda was his daughter.                             In para 1<\/p>\n
     it     is stated that Premala had voluntarily left                             house<\/p>\n
     of Digambar and there was no cruelty to her.                              Digambar<\/p>\n
     went     once or twice to bring her back but she did                              not<\/p>\n
     come     with    him.      He   offered         to      receive         both      the<\/p>\n
     respondents in his house and maintain them.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     10.       So,        considering    this        documentary               evidence\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     regarding       filing     of   criminal case              for      bigamy        and\n\n     filing\n\n     was    two\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
                  application for maintenance and that Mahananda<\/p>\n
                     years old at that time, coupled                     with       clear<\/p>\n
     admission       of     Witness Yadavrao that               Jijabai         married<\/p>\n
     Digambar on 06.04.1979 it can be inferred that Jijabai<\/p>\n
     had    married        subsequent to the marriage                   of     Digambar<\/p>\n
     with respondent No.1 – Premala.\n<\/p>\n
     11.       In     this     case present appellants are                      out      to<\/p>\n
     deprive       respondents of their rights by hook or crook.\n<\/p>\n
     They     went    to     the extent of          falsely         claiming          that<\/p>\n
     deceased Digambar had orally relinquished his right in<\/p>\n
     the    property by accepting Rs.               5000\/- for which there<\/p>\n
     is no evidence and which contention was disbelieved by<\/p>\n
     both     Trial Court and the District Court.                        Above        said<\/p>\n
     discussion       shows     that the appellants have also                         come<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (   9    )<\/p>\n
     with     a     false        case     that marriage          of        Jijabai      with<\/p>\n
     Digambar           was     prior     to   marriage         of        Digambar      with<\/p>\n
     Premala which fact is falsified by documents on record<\/p>\n
     so also admission of Yadavrao.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          So      far     as contention of          present             appellants<\/p>\n
     that     Sheshabai – first wife of Digambar is concerned,<\/p>\n
     except        interested          words   of Nagorao and               his     cousin<\/p>\n
     Yadavrao,           absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
     Nagorao        went to the extent of denying that respondent<\/p>\n
     No.1<\/p>\n
     married.<\/p>\n
\n              Premala\n                              \n                                was     wife   of    Digambar\n\n<\/pre>\n
                        So far as contention that Sheshabai had been
\n                                                                          and    they    had<\/p>\n
     first        wife of Digambar is concerned, absolutely there<\/p>\n
     is     no reliable evidence and considering falsehood                                to<\/p>\n
     which        the     appellants        have    resorted to             it     is    not<\/p>\n
     possible           to rely on oral words of the appellant                          No.1<\/p>\n
     and     his        cousin        Yadavrao.     Both the Courts               did    not<\/p>\n
     trust        words       of Nagorao or Yadavrao             about           Sheshabai<\/p>\n
     being first wife of Digambar.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          On      the     other     hand        there        is     evidence      of<\/p>\n
     P.W.1-Premlabai             who     stated     that her          marriage          with<\/p>\n
     Digambar           was performed on one Sunday in the month                          of<\/p>\n
     “Jeshtha” at Siddheshwar Temple at Jahur about 9 years<\/p>\n
     before her statement on 06.02.1984.                        So, she must have<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (   10   )<\/p>\n
     married     in        about     1975-76.       According         to      her    the<\/p>\n
     marriage        was     solemnized by one Shivmurtiappa                    Jangam<\/p>\n
     and 10-12 persons had come from Ratoli.                        In para 3 she<\/p>\n
     stated     that        Jangam recited Mangalashtaka.                    Digambar<\/p>\n
     and     respondent        No.1 taken seven rounds.                Her      father<\/p>\n
     performed        Kanyadan.          Meals were served.           Her evidence<\/p>\n
     is     supported        by     Shivmurtiappa       Jangam        examined         at<\/p>\n
     Exh.41.         He     also stated that in the             marriage          there<\/p>\n
     were     Mangalashtaka and Saat Fere (seven rounds).                            The<\/p>\n
     marriage        was performed in Mahadev temple.                    It may        be<\/p>\n
     after     9-10 years.\n<\/p>\n
     noted that statements of these witnesses were recorded<\/p>\n
                                     There is evidence of Baburao – the<\/p>\n
     father     of Premala, who also stated that the                         marriage<\/p>\n
     had     taken        place 9 years ago and the ceremonies                      were<\/p>\n
     performed.            It is argued before this Court that it is<\/p>\n
     not      mentioned           that    Saptapadi      and      Hom      were      not<\/p>\n
     performed.        However there is statement of having seven<\/p>\n
     rounds around Mahadev idol in the evidence of Chimnaji<\/p>\n
     Sadba.\n<\/p>\n
     14.        Appellant          No.1.      Nagorao has stated that                  in<\/p>\n
     their     community there is custom of Hom and                        Saptapadi<\/p>\n
     and     marriage        is     performed      by   Brahmin         and     Jangam<\/p>\n
     performs        marriage in Wani caste.             It is not stated to<\/p>\n
     what     cast        or community respondent No.1 – Premala                       or<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (     11    )<\/p>\n
     the     appellant          were     belonging to.                If      we     consider<\/p>\n
     Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it lays down that<\/p>\n
     marriage       should be solemnised in accordance with                                  the<\/p>\n
     customary        rights          and ceremonies by               either         parties.\n<\/p>\n
     So,     it    is not necessary that it should be always                                   as<\/p>\n
     per     customs and ceremony of bridegroom.                              Evidence         of<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.1, her father, Shivmurtiappa Jangam and<\/p>\n
     Chimnaji       Sadba        clearly          indicate           that      they          have<\/p>\n
     performed        marriage according to their custom.                               So     in<\/p>\n
     my    considered opinion, merely because witnesses                                     have<\/p>\n
     not<\/p>\n
     marriage
\n             stated<\/p>\n
                          about Saptapadi & Hom (sacred fire),<\/p>\n
                        would     not        be      invalid.           It     is     nowhere
\n                                                                                             the<\/p>\n
     suggested that rites which were performed as stated by<\/p>\n
     Premala       or     her witnesses were not as per                          custom        in<\/p>\n
     their        community.            No        such        issue     was        raised      by<\/p>\n
     pleadings.                Only                after                evidence               of<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiffs                  was over the respondents stated<\/p>\n
     in    their        evidence        that in their community                      Hom     and<\/p>\n
     Saptapadi           are     performed              and    Brahmin             officiates<\/p>\n
     marriage.           This is nothing but after thought defence.\n<\/p>\n
     No    suggestion           was     given to respondent No.1                      or     her<\/p>\n
     witness       that in their community marriage is performed<\/p>\n
     by    performing rites of Hom and Saptapadi and that the<\/p>\n
     parties are not Wani.                  In civil suits, no party can be<\/p>\n
     allowed       to     take        new     defence         for     which         necessary<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (     12    )<\/p>\n
     foundation          is   not laid in the pleading and when                        the<\/p>\n
     other        side was not put to notice by any suggestion in<\/p>\n
     the cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
     15.           The    learned advocate Shri Godhamgaonkar cited<\/p>\n
     case     of       Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and anr.                     vs.       The<\/p>\n
     State        of     Maharashtra and anr., AIR 1965 S.C.                        1564.\n<\/p>\n
     In     that case it is laid down that for proving offence<\/p>\n
     punishable under Section 494 of the I.P.C.                            two things<\/p>\n
     should        be proved (i) the marriage is solemnized after<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
     such<\/p>\n
             commencement of the Act, and (ii) at the date<\/p>\n
              marriage, either party had a spouse living.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                         of<\/p>\n
                                                                                       The<\/p>\n
     word “solemnize” means, in connection with a marriage,<\/p>\n
     “to     celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and<\/p>\n
     in     due     form”.        It   is observed            that    merely         going<\/p>\n
     through certain ceremonies with the intention that the<\/p>\n
     parties        be    taken     to be married, will not                  make      the<\/p>\n
     ceremonies          prescribed     by     law       or    approved         by     any<\/p>\n
     established          custom.      So, it was a            case       necessarily<\/p>\n
     under        criminal    law      where    proof has            to    be     beyond<\/p>\n
     reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
     16.          The learned advocate for the respondents cited<\/p>\n
     case     of Subhash Popatlal Shah Vs.                    Smt.      Lata Subhash<\/p>\n
     Shah, AIR 1994 Bombay 43 has observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 (   13   )<\/p>\n
               “8.      ………………………………..
\n               There is nothing in the evidence of either the<\/p>\n
               husband or the wife that saptapadi was a must
\n               according to the religious rites, ceremonies
\n               and     customs    prevalent    between   them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Therefore, even if saptapadi was not one of
\n               the items of the marriage ceremony undertaken
\n               by the parties before us, we are of the
\n               opinion    that   the   marriage between    the
\n               appellant and the respondent cannot be held to<\/p>\n
               be illegal and invalid. In fact, when some
\n               sort of marriage ceremony was undergone by and
\n               between the parties, there       is always    a
\n               presumption of validity of marriage unless the
\n               presumption is rebutted by quite cogent and
\n               satisfactory evidence. ………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .\n<\/p>\n
     the   judgments<\/p>\n
               In that case the Division Bench has considered<\/p>\n
                        in the case of Priya Bala Vs.                Suresh<\/p>\n
     Chandra,    AIR 1971 S.C.1153 and other cases and it                   is<\/p>\n
     observed that the judgments cited were in the cases of<\/p>\n
     offence    of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the<\/p>\n
     I.P.C.    and in which it was held that when the parties<\/p>\n
     are   both Hindus and performance of Saptapadi was                   not<\/p>\n
     proved,    it   cannot be said that second          marriage         was<\/p>\n
     proved    beyond reasonable doubt and same is valid.                   It<\/p>\n
     is also observed that the judgments handed down by the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court in criminal cases involving the proof of<\/p>\n
     the   offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of<\/p>\n
     the   I.P.C.     would not be relevant in         a    matrimonial<\/p>\n
     proceedings.    The Division Bench also referred to case<\/p>\n
     of Badri Prasad vs.    Dy Director of Consolidation, AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (   14    )<\/p>\n
     1978 S.C.1557 in same paragraph 8.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        Another          case    cited      by   the     respondents            is<\/p>\n
     Chandrabhagabai             Ganpati       Karwar (Dead) by L.Rs.                 Vs.<\/p>\n
     Sambhaji        Narhari Karwar (Dead) by L.Rs., 2008 (1) All<\/p>\n
     M.R.54.         In    that     case       several       authorities             were<\/p>\n
     considered          and    in para 19 it is observed that                     there<\/p>\n
     was     satisfactory         evidence       on record         to     show       that<\/p>\n
     deceased        Ganpati and the defendant lived together for<\/p>\n
     a considerable period and were regarded as husband and<\/p>\n
     wife.      It<\/p>\n
                          is observed that there is<\/p>\n
     legitimacy of the marriage and the defendants examined
\n                                                                 presumption            of<\/p>\n
     the     witnesses         who had attended the marriage and                      the<\/p>\n
     First     Appellate         Court     committed          parent        error       in<\/p>\n
     rejecting       legality of the marriage because there                           was<\/p>\n
     no proof of performance of Hom and Saptapadi.\n<\/p>\n
     18.        In       this case, the appellants are not entitled<\/p>\n
     to    take new defence for which no foundation was                              laid<\/p>\n
     in       the         pleading       or         during         evidence             of<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiffs.                The evidence of appellants is<\/p>\n
     not     trustworthy.           The District Court has                considered<\/p>\n
     all     evidence          in detail and rightly held marriage                      of<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.1-Premalabai with Digambar as legal and<\/p>\n
     valid.         In    the present case, the view taken                     by     the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                   (   15   )<\/p>\n
     First       Appellate Court regarding validity and legality<\/p>\n
     of    the     marriage cannot be considered as perverse                  or<\/p>\n
     illegal.        This   second appeal has no merit            and      same<\/p>\n
     deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     19.         In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           [P.R. BORKAR, J.]<\/p>\n
     snk\/2009\/JAN09\/sa41.90<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:15 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 1990 1. Nagorao Bhujanga More ]..Appellants (original 2. Venkati Nagorao More def.1 & 2) VERSUS 1. Premalabai w\/o. Digamber ]..Respondents (deleted as per […]<\/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-40271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - 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\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-19T16:15:54+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T16:15:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2387,\"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\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T16:15:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - 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\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-19T16:15:54+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T16:15:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009"},"wordCount":2387,"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\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009","name":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T16:15:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-bhujanga-more-vs-premalabai-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagorao Bhujanga More vs Premalabai on 10 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/40271","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=40271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}