ALP-55-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PRIVATE PARTY NO. 55 OF 2025 Charushila w/o Prabhakar Pardeshi Age : 41 years, Occu : Household, R/o. Plot No.16, “Anurag”, State Bank Colony, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. … Applicant [Orig. Complainant] Versus Prabhakar S/o Gaba Pardeshi Age : 53 years, Occu : Primary Teacher, R/o. Zilla Parishad Primary School, Lendane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik. … Respondent [Orig. Accused] ….. Mr. Yogeshwar L. Bidve, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 04.09.2026 Pronounced on : 08.09.2026 ORDER : 1. This leave to file appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Joint JMFC, Jalgaon in RCC No. 32 of 2001, acquitting respondent herein from charge under Section 494 of IPC. 2. Proceedings were instituted by present applicant before learned trial court on the premise that, she was married to respondent on 23.03.2008 as per customs and rituals. That, said marriage was still in 2026:BHC-AUG:41330 ALP-55-2025 -2- existence. On 01.05.2013, accused drove her out and therefore she filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as well as under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and she is receiving maintenance and also stood beneficiaries of other reliefs. That, during pendency of such proceedings, respondent performed second marriage with one Sunita and thereby he committed offence under Section 494 IPC, and hence she filed complaint. It is also submitted that, respondent also has two children from his second marriage. Apart form her own evidence, applicant adduced evidence of PW2 in support of birth of child out of second marriage of respondent. However, learned trial court held that there is no proof of second marriage and essential ingredients of Section 494 IPC being not made out, accused (present respondent) has been acquitted. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the above, applicant intends to prefer appeal and hence, instant leave application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, applicant’s case that she was married to accused was duly proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. That accused, during subsistence of first marriage, performed marriage with another lady ALP-55-2025 -3- and thereby committed offence under Section 494 IPC. That, there was also evidence about child born from the second marriage performed by the respondent with another lady. According to learned counsel, all ingredients to attract the offence were available but there is incorrect appreciation on the part of the trial court. According to him, there is good case in appeal and hence, by seeking reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.)317/2023 dated 27.08.2025, leave is urged for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order to be just, legal and proper, and for want of merits, prays to reject the application. 6. perused the record. In support of her own marriage, present applicant had adduced her own evidence. Applicant has also adduced evidence of employee of Tongaonkar Hospital. Admittedly, there is no proof of second marriage either in the form of wedding card or any form of evidence to demonstrate marriage. Moreover, it seems that she was not in a position to state even the very details of second marriage of accused. 7. Law is well-settled that to bring home the offence under Section 494 of IPC, the first as well as the second marriage alleged should be ALP-55-2025 -4- proved in accordance with the legal requirements under Hindu Law and under caste, custom of the particular accused. Absence of proof regarding solemnization of any marriage of any one of these two marriages would automatically defeat the charge under Section 494 of the IPC. 8. In the instant case, there is no evidence that respondent performed second marriage. PW2 is examined to demonstrate birth of a child out of second marriage of the respondent but, as pointed out, it is emerging from the cross of PW2 that the extract Exhibit 48 are not filled by respondent or his alleged second wife and it does not bear delivery register number as well as dates of admission and discharge. This witness PW2 seems to have admitted that he was not carrying original delivery register. 9. In view of the above, no good ground being made out to accord leave, following order is passed : ORDER I. Leave refused. II. The Application is dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre