*1* 36revn177o19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2019 HARSHADA DEVIDAS GHATE VERSUS DEVIDAS SUKHDEV GHATE ... Advocate Kazi Sabahat T., for the Applicant. Shri Navin S. Shah, advocate h/f Shri Natu Sharad V., advocate for the sole respondent. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 31 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhule, in Petition No.E-7/2013 and further praying for issuance of direction to the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the applicant. 2. According to the applicant, the marriage of the applicant with the respondent took place on 11.11.2010 as per Hindu rites. In view of certain differences between the couple, the applicant filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Dhule, claiming maintenance. Vide the impugned order dated 2026:BHC-AUG:39600 *2* 36revn177o19 28.03.2019, the said application came to be dismissed. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not considered the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Sou. Urmita Badshah Godse and another, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : AIR 2014 SC 869 wherein, the second wife is also held to be entitled for maintenance. According to the learned advocate, the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent strenuously opposed the instant revision on the ground that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment by following correct position of law. The learned Family Court has observed that the applicant has admitted about her previous marriage with one Ganesh More. The applicant also failed to produce the divorce decree issued by the competent court. Since the earlier marriage is in subsistence, the applicant cannot be held to be legally wedded wife of the respondent and thus, is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent. There is no error in the findings arrived at by the Family Court. There is no illegality *3* 36revn177o19 or perversity in the impugned judgment. Learned advocate, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant revision. 5. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing with their assistance the available record, I find that the applicant has filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the premise that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 11.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and therefore, she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. However, the applicant, in her cross-examination, has admitted that her earlier marriage was solemnized with one Ganesh Rambhau More and she has obtained divorce by executing the divorce on stamp paper. It is admitted position that the applicant has not produced any valid decree of divorce of the competent court and in the absence of same, it cannot be said that earlier marriage was dissolved. Hence, the learned Family Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Even the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant in the case of Badshah (supra) is not applicable to this case as the facts are altogether different. *4* 36revn177o19 6. In view of the above discussion, I find that no error, much less any manifest illegality or perversity, is committed by the Family Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Application, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )