R.K. Deshpande, J. - (1.) IN Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2004 filed by the appellant -wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - per month, the Trial Court passed a decree on 27 -7 -2007 directing the respondent No. 1 -husband to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/ - per month to the appellant -wife from the date of filing of the suit. It was further declared that the charge of maintenance amount be kept on the share of the respondent No. 1 -husband in the joint family property. The said suit was dismissed against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Regular Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2007 preferred by the respondent No. 1 -husband was allowed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 20 -10 -2011, setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the original plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal.
(2.) INITIALLY , this second appeal was disposed of by this Court, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The matter was then carried to the Apex Court. In Civil Appeal Nos. 10086 -10087 of 2014, the Apex Court set aside the decision of this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court for framing the substantial question of law and deciding the same accordingly. On remand of the matter, this Court passed an order on 10 -6 -2015 as under: "Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the decision of the Apex Court remanding the matter back to this Court for framing the appropriate substantial question of law and deciding the matter on its own merits. Admit, on the following substantial question of law: Whether the appellant -wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 being the second wife of the respondent No. 1, particularly when the factum of subsistence of first marriage of the respondent No. 1 was alleged to have been suppressed? The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 waives service of notice. Put up this matter for final disposal on 25 -6 -2015." The parties were put on notice that the matter may be finally disposed of by this Court in view of the decision of the Apex Court and accordingly it is fixed today. The Trial Court held that the appellant -wife has established that the respondent No. 1 -husband has willfully refused and neglected her as a wife and that she is entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, an amount of maintenance was fixed at Rs. 450/ - per month. It was urged before the Trial Court that the appellant -wife being the second wife was not entitled to maintenance. The Trial Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga, reported in : 2005(2) SCC 33, for the proposition that a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependent. The lower Appellate Court has distinguished the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that it arose out of the marriage petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The analogy cannot, therefore, extended to a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the marriage of the respondent No. 1 with the appellant was performed on 6 -7 -1991 and at that time, the earlier marriage of the respondent No. 1 with one Bharti was subsisting. It is also not in dispute that the appellant -wife was pregnant after the marriage and she left the matrimonial house after about a period of six months, but there is no issue out of the wedlock. The case of the appellant -wife before the Trial Court was that the respondent No. 1 -husband suppressed the factum of first marriage, which took place in the year 1984 with one Bharti, at the time of her marriage of the respondent No. 1 on 6 -7 -1991. This was denied by the respondent No. 1. The appellant -wife entered the witness -box and deposed about the suppression of first marriage by the respondent No. 1 -husband. She was also cross -examined by the respondent No. 1 -husband. The respondent No. 1 -husband also entered the witness -box and denied suppression of first marriage. He also examined two more witnesses, who were cross -examined by the appellant -wife. None of the Courts below have recorded any finding on the question of suppression of first marriage by the respondent No. 1 -husband at the time of the marriage with the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 -husband has urged that both the Courts below have not framed any issue on the point of suppression of first marriage by the respondent No. 1. He, therefore, prays that the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court on this aspect.;