Child born from arrangement other than marriage has no right on Hindu Father's property!

Does child born from arrangement other than marriage has a right on Hindu Father's property!

The Court analyzed the matter thoroughly and provided answer as clear as water; NO!

(A) Whether a child born to a couple who are in live-in relationship, can be covered under section 16 of the Act?

The society is going through a transitional phase where instances of live-in relationship are slowly growing so it is accepted as a particular mode of social bonding like marriage.

Maternity is a fact which is admitted and proved, however, paternity in some cases, especially, when no marriage is performed, then, is a matter of proof unless it is acknowledged by the natural father.

Sanctity is required to be given to the birth of a human being and, therefore, for his survival and well being, it is necessary to fix his proprietary rights. A father of a child cannot escape from his responsibility after just giving birth and, therefore, the rights of such child are to be protected.

However, for any such child born without marriage, there is no legal sanction.

(B) The man married twice. The man married 2nd time during subsistence of his 1st marriage.

His 2nd wife also had earlier married twice and her earlier marriage was subsisting during her last marriage with this man. The dispute occurred on death of man for share in his pension and property.

Dated: JUNE 7, 2017: The Bombay High Court held that:

'Marriage is a condition precedent to decide the legitimacy of a Child.

There should be a valid, void or voidable marriage to attract legitimacy to the illegitimate child.'

Thus, the meaning of marriage and the benefit of legitimacy as contemplated under section 16 is not wide but is restricted to and controlled by the word 'marriage'.

Any physical relationship between a man and a woman is not contemplated as a marriage under section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act.

The society is undergoing a sea-change in social norms, values and relationships. In some countries, homosexual unions are accepted as marriages; so also live-in relationships and children born within such relationships have posed as complicated issues and challenge to the legal thinkers to define the term marriage whether in a wider or narrow meaning.

A child born out of a sexual encounter, consensual, by chance, choice or by accident, between a man and woman may not have any rights over the father's property, if there is no marriage.

The marriage, even if declared as void, later, has to be proved to decide the rights of the child.

(C) Earlier; Apex Court; Supreme Court of India;

34. However, one thing must be made clear that benefit given under the amended Section 16 is available only in cases where there is a marriage but such marriage is void or voidable in view of the provisions of the Act.

Supreme Court of India
Revanasiddappa & Anr vs Mallikarjun & Ors on 31 March, 2011
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

(D) Benefit given under the amended section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act is available only in cases where there is a marriage may such marriage is void or voidable in view of the provisions of the act'. In converse, if there is no marriage may be void or voidable, then, this benefit of 'deeming legitimacy' is not available for the children, who are begotten out of any physical relationship of a man and a woman. Thus, the meaning of marriage and the benefit of legitimacy as contemplated under section 16 is not wide but is restricted to and controlled by the word 'marriage'.

Any physical relationship between a man and a woman is not contemplated as a marriage under section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act.

The word 'marriage' is required to be understood in common parlance on the backdrop of requirements under law. Though the marriage is not defined under Hindu Marriage Act, void or voidable marriage is defined under sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, broadly, either customary solemnization of marriage is required or performance of legal formality is a condition precedent to label that relationship as a marriage. For example, a one night consensual affair cannot be called a marriage.

Merely having a physical relationship between man and a woman also cannot be called as a marriage. Any physical intimacy/sexual intercourse, which took place by choice or by chance or by accident, is not a marriage.

Thus, though physical relationship is a vital part of the marriage, it is still something more than that. Basically what is required to call such relationship as a marriage is firstly the intention and desire of the parties to marry and to give status to each other as a husband and wife. The manifestation of such desire is through performance of certain religious rites or legal formalities.

There is legal, social or customary requirement of solemnization between the parties. The duration of marital status also is one of the determining factors to render them a status of a married couple.

(E) 3. This court, while admitting this appeal for final hearing on 19-3-1983, had framed the following substantial question of law for its decision:-

"Whether, in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by the Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976, the illegitimate children, i.e., the appellant Reshamlal and respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are entitled to a share out of the property of the common ancestor Baswan?"

4. Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976 provided legitimacy to children of a marriage hit by Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act. Section 11 provides a procedure for getting a marriage declared void if it contravenes one of the conditions of Section 5 of the said Act. The conditions under which a marriage is said to be void are those mentioned in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the said Act. Marriage between parties having a spouse living at the time of marriage is hit by this provision.

This provision has been interpreted to mean that there must be a marriage, which would be hit by the provisions of this Act and would not cover a relationship resulting from any other arrangement than the marriage.

9. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court is unable to hold that the appellant, even as an illegitimate son is a 'son' for purposes of Section 8 read with schedule to the Hindu Succession Act and, has, therefore, right to succeed to the properties of late Baswan.

In the opinion of this Court, he is not a 'son' within the meaning of the term and, therefore, not an heir to Baswan.

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reshamlal Baswan vs Balwant Singh Jwalasingh Punjabi ... on 2 February, 1988

(F) (1) Central Government Act

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

5 Conditions for a Hindu marriage. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

7 Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. -

(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.

(4) Any child of the parties to a marriage referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) born of such marriage shall be deemed to be their legitimate child: Provided that in a case falling under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3), such child was begotten before the date of the dissolution of the marriage or, as the case may be, before the date of the second of the marriages referred to in the said sub-clause (ii)

11 Void marriages. - Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto 11[against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses, (iv) and (v) of section 5.

12 Voidable marriages.

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:

(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage

(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered;

16 Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.

(1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.]

(2) Central Government Act

The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(3) Central Government Act

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(f) 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage

(G) Dated: 31 March, 2011; The Apex Court decided that:

12. Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:

"16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages-

13. Thus, the abovementioned section makes it very clear that a child of a void or voidable marriage can only claim rights to the property of his parents, and no one else.

34. However, one thing must be made clear that benefit given under the amended Section 16 is available only in cases where there is a marriage but such marriage is void or voidable in view of the provisions of the Act.

Supreme Court of India
Revanasiddappa & Anr vs Mallikarjun & Ors on 31 March, 2011
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2011
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09)
Author: Ganguly
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly
(H) Dated; 25/10/2013:

'As per Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, second wife is entitled to equal shares in the pension.'

3.Petitioner No.1 claims to be the second wife of the deceased Dhulaji Shriram. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the children born out of cohabitation between Dhulaji Shriram and petitioner No.1 Kantabai. Deceased Dhulaji was in service of the Forest Department.

He joined service in the year 1981 and died on 14/06/1998. As such the petitioners filed Misc.Application No.27/2006 before the learned Judge. In the said applications, the petitioners claimed pension and other benefits on the plea that petitioner No.1 is admittedly the second wife of deceased Dhulaji.

4. In the light of the facts set out here in above, the learned Judge was therefore required to only look into the aspect of applicability of Rule 116(1)(a)(i) of The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

5. The contention of the petitioners was that the said Rule provides for payment of family pension to widows more than one in equal share.

29. The husband of these two widows has died in 1998. Both the widows are leaning towards old age. The issue of family pension has been pending for years. In light of the facts and law discussed above and the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Badshah's case(supra), I conclude that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by Rule 116 at issue. The impugned judgments dated 09/03/2012 and 13/12/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner No.1 is held to be entitled for an equal share of family pension along with respondent No.1. Civil Revision Application is thus allowed with no order as to costs.

Kantabai w/o. Dhulaji Shriram vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2013
RESERVED ON : 14/10/2013 PRONOUNCED ON : 25/10/2013
(I) DATED: 26.11.2015

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Whether a Hindu woman who marries a Hindu man during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife would be entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held from time to time that a woman marrying a Hindu male during the subsistence of his marriage and during the life time of his wife would not be entitled to family pension after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18.5.1955.

While deciding the present case we have considered the provisions of various  enactments &rules that were not considered in the judgment reported in 2015 (2)Mh.L.J. 328. If the claim of the woman like the petitioner is allowed, it would  give a gobye to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and various Civil Services Rules. We cannot show any sympathy to the petitioner, as sought, in the circumstances of the case. Showing sympathy to a woman like the petitioner would result in depriving a legitimate wife of her right to receive full family pension. If a Hindu man performs a void marriage several times, the legitimate wife may get a miniscule part of the family pension and her position cannot be made so vulnerable, despite a valid marriage. The submission that the State would not be burdened if more widows than one receive pension and hence it has nothing to lose, would not be relevant while considering the entitlement of the woman or women entering into a void marriage. The issue is not about the burden on the State exchequer but is about the entitlement of more widows  than one to receive pension under the Rules and the prejudice that may be caused to the legally wedded wife.

Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned order denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1251/2015

Smt. Chanda Hinglas Bharati Vs1. The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
DATE : 26.11.2015

(J) The contentious and complicated issue landed before Bombay High Court.

The court delivered judgment as clear as water. Jaydeo Pawar married twice, 1st with Draupada and 2nd with Indibai. His 2nd wife also had earlier married twice and her earlier marriage was subsisting during her last marriage with this man.

The dispute occurred on death of man for share in his pension and property. Later His marriages with both Draupada Jaydeo Pawar and Indubai Jaydeo Pawar were proved.

(1) DATED: 16th DECEMBER, 2015

In this matter, whether the pension is an estate which can be disposed of by Willis an issue. The learned trial judge has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh in the case of 'Sundariya Bai Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2008 Madhya Pradesh 227' where it is held that pension of the deceased can be said to be an estate and it is non transferable and can not be bequeathed by Will. This issue needs to be deliberated after going through the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or of the Bombay High Court, if any.

2. Place the matter on 21st December, 2015.The interim order if any, to  continue till then.

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1770 OF 2015

(2)3. Draupada Jaydeo Pawar and Indubai Jaydeo Pawar both claimed to be wives of the deceased Jaydeo Pawar, have filed these Misc. applications separately for succession and heirship certificate in their favour. (In order to avoid confusion, both the parties are addressed by their names).

4. As per the case of the Draupada, her marriage was solemnized with Jaydeo Pawar in the year 1979 and five children were born out of the said wedlock. Jaydeo died on 10th July, 2003 at village Ainwadi, Tal. Khanapur, Sangli. Before death Jaydeo had executed a Will dated 17th May, 2002 and he bequeathed the entire property in favour of his wife Draupada. After death of Jaydeo, Draupada applied for the Letters of Administration and on that basis she claimed that Jaydeo had married to her in the year 1979 and the second marriage with Indubai allegedly performed was solemnized in the year 1981 and therefore Indubai has no claim in the pension or other pensionary benefits of Jaydeo.

5. Per contra, Indubai claims that her marriage with Jaydeo was solemnized as per Hindu rites & ritual on 22nd June, 1981 & out of their wedlock she gave birth to one Shubhangi who is one of the applicant in these applications for succession certificate. It is the case of Indubai that after few years of marriage, Jaydeo neglected her and her daughter Shubhangi. Therefore she had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the J.M.F.C., Sangli vide Misc. Application No. 225 of 1989. The said application was decided in favour of Indubai and the Court ordered Jaydeo to pay maintenance to her.

6. Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2006 for heirship was filed by Draupada and Miscellaneous Application No. 168 of 2003 for heirswhip was filed by Indubai. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove their respective claims as legally wedded wife of Jaydeo. The learned Judge of the trial Court appreciated the evidence and held that Draupada failed to prove her

valid marriage with Jaydeo in the year 1979 however, the fact of marriage of Jaydeo with Indubai is believed by the trial Court and partly allowed the application filed by Draupada. During the pendency of the applications, Draupada died. In Miscellaneous Application No. 168 of 2003, the learned Judge directed to issue succession certificate in the name of the applicant Indubai to enable her to receive arrears of family pension and future family pension subject to payment of share of family pension amount if applicant Nos. 2 to 6 i.e. children of Draupada in Misc. Application No. 131 of 2006 are found entitled to those amounts. This order is challenged by applicant Nos. 2 to 6 in Misc. Application No. 131 of 2006 i.e. children of Draupada.

7. At the time of hearing the Appeal, the points of determination are formulated as under:

1) Whether Draupada was legally wedded wife of Jaydeo?

2) Whether family pension is an Estate of the employer which can be bequeathed by Will ?

3) Under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1982 whether the family pension is payable equally to the second widow, when first widow is alive of Government servant ?

9. The learned counsel submitted that status of Indubai as a second wife is illegal and her marriage with Jaydeo was void. She hasno right in the property or pension of Jaydeo.

10. The learned counsel for the Respondents has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. He submitted that the other benefits are given to the Appellants but Indubai has rightful claim over the pension which is recognized by the trial Court. He submitted that Indubai got married on 22nd June, 1981 with Jaydeo and one daughter namely Shubhangi was born out of their wedlock.

He further argued that Indubai was compelled to file a criminal case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in reply, Jaydeo has admitted his marriage with Indubai and did not say a single word about his first marriage with Draupada. He further submitted that this admission given by Jaydeo of his marriage with Indubai supports the claims of Indubai as legally wedded wife of

Jaydeo over pension and pensionary benefits. He further argued that if there would have been prior marriage with Draupada, then Jaydeo ought to have mentioned about the first marriage. However, there is no whisper about it. He supported the reasoning and finding given by the trial Judge. He submitted that the Will executed by Jaydeo is challenged by Indubai.

He submitted that pension is not an 'estate' of any employer which can be disposed of by Will. Therefore, the bequeath of pension by Jaydeo in favour of Draupada in the said Will is not legal and the property can not be disposed of by Jaydeo in this manner.

37. The reasoning given by the Division Bench is consistent with the other provisions of law as mentioned above wherein the second marriage is held void. The Indian legal system has adopted monogamy as a legal structure of the marriage institution and, therefore, occasional fractures of second marriage in subsistence of first marriage are held void in law. The second woman cannot be given a status of a legally wedded wife and, as rightly observed by the Division bench, she is not a widow in true and legal sense. A wrong may exist in the Society on a large scale, however it cannot be justified as a righteous custom because of its magnitude. In order to buttress this point, it will not be out of place to give example of give and take of dowry which throws light on the wide gap between the legality and the reality. To take lenient view towards the wrong doers is contrary to law laid down by the legislature. Thus, gap should not be widened by the decision of the Court but it is to be bridged. It is mandatory for the Court to interpret a law which gives true effect to the legislative intent. The Division Bench in the case of Chanda Hinglas Bharati has referred to the relevant provisions under different acts regarding the consequences of second marriage and the status of second woman.

39. Thus, I fully rely on the ratio laid down in the case of Chanda Hinglas Bharati and hold that marriage contracted with second lady in subsistence of first marriage or spouse is living, then second lady from the Hindu/Christians cannot claim as a widow entitled to pension subject to personal law or as stated in Rule 26 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.

The First Appeal filed by Draupada is allowed.

In view of this, Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.

40. The learned counsel for the respondents prays that the operation of this order be stayed for four weeks, as he wants to challenge this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of this, the operation of this order is stayed till 14th March, 2016.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1770 OF 2015 Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and Others vs. Indubai d/o. Kashinath Shivram Chavan and Another
CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 5th JANUARY, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th FEBRUARY, 2016

(K) So the matter in case of Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and Others vs. Indubai d/o. Kashinath Shivram Chavan and Another landed before Apex Court.

Dated: 18/03/2016, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORDER

After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even assuming that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to the family pension, since the marriage is void even then the child born in that marriage will be entitled to succeed to the property of his father. It is not clear whether the petitioners had taken this issue before the High Court.

We feel it will be appropriate to take up this issue before the High Court by way of review, so that the respondents need not be unnecessarily called to this court, in a family pension case.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to file a review application before the High Court. If it is filed within thirty days, the same will be considered on merits.

ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6966/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/02/2016 in FA No. 577/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
INDUBAI AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS DRAUPADA @ DRAUPADI JAYDEO PAWAR (D) THR. LRS. Respondent(s)
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Date: 18/03/2016

(L) So the matter in case of Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and Others vs. Indubai d/o. Kashinath Shivram Chavan and Another landed again before Bombay High Court, in form of Review Petition.

Dated: JUNE 7, 2017.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage, even if subsequently declared as void, has to be proved to decide the rights of the child. In the case before the court, the man had two wives. Since there was proof that the man had married a second time, the court held that though his second marriage was void, the daughter from his second wife had the right to a share of his property.

If marriage is contracted with second lady in subsistence of first marriage, then the second lady cannot claim to be a widow entitled to subsistence of first marriage is held void in law.

The second woman cannot be given a status of a legally wedded wife.

1. The judgment and order dated 10.2.2016 passed in First Appeal No.577 of 2015 is the subject matter of this review petition.

24. Thus the submissions of Mr.Kothari that there should be a void or voidable marriage to attract legitimacy to the illegitimate child, are accepted. However, the facts of the present case and the evidence tendered herein are not in his favour.

25. In the present case, there is evidence to show that the petitioner deceased Indubai has stayed with the deceased Jaydev Pawar for a long time and has got married on 22.6.1981. The daughter Shubhangi was born within this relationship. The registration of the birth discloses that the name of the deceased is Jaydev Pawar as her father at the time of her birth. Under such circumstances, it can very well be said that in the present case, there is evidence to show that marriage was solemnized between Jaydeo and Indubai and the child was born. Further, I rely on the judgement of the trial Judge who passed the order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said order of maintenance to Indubai was confirmed by the High Court.

I also rely on the contentions raised by the respondent in her matrimonial proceedings wherein the status of Indubai is challenged on the ground of 'void marriage' and not that there was no marriage at all.

Thus, it can be considered as an admission on the part of the respondent of the void marriage between Jaydeo and Indubai. Once it is found that there is overall evidence of long stay of Indubai and Jaydeo and void marriage between Indubai and late Jaydev, then, Indubai was married earlier twice or not and whether petitioner/Shubhangi was born before Indubai's earlier marriage was legally dissolved, are immaterial issues.

I also sift through the evidence which shows that there was some performance of marriage between late Jaydev Pawar and the petitioner.

Thus, though the second wife is not entitled to any pensionary benefit as the marriage was not valid between them, a girl child, Shubhangi, who was begotten within such relationship, benefit of legitimacy is available to her under section 16.

Hence, she will have a similar right like other legitimate children of Jaydeo in the property of Jaydeo. To that extent, the review petition is allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.19 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.577 OF 2015
Indubai Jaydeo Pawar & Anr

Vs.

Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar & Ors
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
ORDER RESERVED ON : MARCH 16, 2017
ORDER DELIVERED ON: JUNE 7, 2017

(M) The man and woman must consider the fate of innocent children that they give birth to from illicit/illegal relationship before adventuring into such relationship. The religion and custom and society do profess to stay away from such relationships.

Once the mater lands up in court of law, the court decides within ambit of law. The fate of spouses that do not listen to preaching's of religion, good customs, society, advice of wise men and women, and innocent children that are born to such spouses, may hang in imbalance and uncertainty and hardships can stare at them, even though they are not at fault.