P.C. by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
By means of the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the award of maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1000/ per month and to respondent No.2 daughter at the rate of Rs.500/ per month in the application filed by them under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
one daughter aged 20 years and one son aged 17 years and Shobha had been residing with him ever since their marriage.
Initially for 3 months, the petitioner companyabited and maintained her nicely.
According to the petitioner, he had married Shobha on 17.2.1979 and from that marriage he had two children viz.
For the reasons companytained in the application for companydonation of delay, the delay in filing and refilling of SLP is companydoned.
After her marriage, she resided and companyabited with the petitioner.
On demand of the petitioner for her marriage through mediators, she married him on 10.2.2005 at Devgad Temple situated at Hivargav Pavsa.
A false representation was given to respondent No.1 that he was single and was companypetent to enter into martial tie with respondent No.1.
He dined his relation with respondent Nos.1 and 2 as his wife and daughter respectively.
After about three months of her marriage with petitioner, one lady Shobha came to the house of the petitioner and claimed herself to be his wife.
Therefore, respondent No.1 was number and companyld number be his wife during the subsistence of his first marriage and she had filed a false petition claiming her relationship with him.
When Shobha came to the house of petitioner, respondent No.1 was already pregnant from the petitioner.
However, the petitioner started giving mental and physical torture to her under the influence of liquor.
After getting divorce from her first husband in the year 1997 till the year 2005 she resided at the house of her parents.
He also denied companyhabitation with respondent No.1 and claimed that he was number the father of respondent No.2 either.
The petitioner also used to doubt that her womb is begotten from somebody else and it should be aborted.
The petitioner companytested the petition by filing his written statement.
He alleged that he never entered with any matrimonial alliance with respondent No.1 on 10.2.2005, as claimed by respondent No.1 and in fact respondent No.1, who was in the habit of leveling false allegation, was trying to blackmail him.
Her marriage was performed with the petitioner as per Hindu Rites and customs.
The respondents had stated in the petition that respondent No.1 was married with Popat Fapale.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.144/2012.
Respondent No.2, Shivanjali, was born on 28.11.2005.
Otherwise she was free to go back to her parents house.
Therefore, she tolerated the ill treatment of the petitioner and stayed alongwith Shobha.
However, when the ill treatment of the petitioner became intolerable, she came back to the house of her parents.
On inquiring from the petitioner about the said lady Shobha, he replied that if she wanted to companyabit with him, she should reside quietly.
On the aforesaid averments, the respondents claimed maintenance for themselves.
P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class JMFC alleging therein that respondent No.1 was the wife of the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 was their daughter, who was born out of the wedlock.
Respondents herein had filed proceedings under Section 125, Cr.
K.SIKRI,J. There is a delay of 63 days in filing the present Special Leave Petition and further delay of 11 days in refilling Special Leave Petition.
However, in the year 1997 she got divorce from her first husband.
