Maintenance plea dismissed

MUMBAI, Sept 6: The Bombay High Court recently dismissed Saraswati Baburao Bugad's claim for maintenance from her second husband. Reason:...

MUMBAI, Sept 6: The Bombay High Court recently dismissed Saraswati Baburao Bugad8217;s claim for maintenance from her second husband. Reason: she couldn8217;t prove her divorce from her first husband.

The twelve-year-old legal battle waged by Saraswati, a labourer from Vita village in Sangli district, is not only tragic, but also indicates the social conditions prevalent in the Devang Koshti community to which she belongs.

The High Court has dismissed her application by upholding the order of the Sangli trial court, which didn8217;t entertain her claim in 1992. But High Court judge S S Parkar has observed that the respondent husband shouldn8217;t insist on refund of the maintenance amount which is already deposited by him following the initial order of payment of maintenance by the judicial magistrate of Vita in 1986.

Saraswati was married as a teenager to one Vilas Rokade in the year 1977. The marriage, however, lasted a little less than a decade and was dissolved by mutual consent. The petitioner claimed such adissolution was a common custom within the Devang Koshti community. Thereafter, in January 1986, she married Baburao Bugad. After three months of marriage, Bugad declined to maintain her.

Meanwhile, she conceived a child in August 1986. She then filed an application before the judicial magistrate, Vita. The magistrate ordered monthly maintenance of Rs 250 for the petitioner and Rs 100 for the child. This order was challenged by the husband in the trial court, which ruled in his favour. Therefore, Saraswati moved HC, stating that the Sangli court shouldn8217;t have interfered with the magistrate8217;s order.

She claimed she was divorced by her former husband by publishing a public notice in the newspaper Daily Vishal Sahyadri. Her counsel S V Sadavarte claims her consent to the divorce is implied in the fact that she didn8217;t challenge the notice. As a result of this, she becomes the legally wedded wife of the second husband. But Justice Parkar ruled a unilateral public notice can8217;t amount to divorce by mutualconsent. Therefore the second marriage is null and void in the eyes of law.

It is also brought on record that Saraswati was initially working as a maid-servant in the second husband8217;s house. A document with a stamp paper was produced in the trial court, which mentions an amount of Rs 900 paid to her by Bugad in 1986. The judge has ruled that if the duo were married, such formal documents wouldn8217;t have been executed.

Story continues below this ad

Lastly, the judge ruled, the vast age difference between Saraswati 25 and her second husband 60, who is stated to have suffered infertility, doesn8217;t support her claim of having conceived the child from him.