words per minute
9
SIDDHANT_Srivastava
00:00
Speed
4. The legal consequence , according to the learned trila Judge was that neither of the defendant had ashare in the properties of Tukaram. He however, held that both the defendant were entitled to o maintenace,. For this the learned trilal Judge relied upon Rajesbai Sadashic Khianar v. Shantabai Sadashic Khainar, , wherein it has been heldby Masodkar, J that "where in any collateral proceedings after the death of a Hindu husband, a finding is recorded by a competent Civil court that this his marriage with a woman ws viod de juere that woman would be entitled to rely on the principles of s. 25, Hindu Marriage ACt, and invoke the powers of the Court for making provisions for just and fair maintenace". While so holding, Masodkar, J in fact purposrted to apply a ruling of another judgement of this court,namely Govidrao v Anandibai (by Kania J as he then was), . As far the right of maintenance of childeren born of a viod maraige is concerned, s. 21(viii) read with s. 22 Hindu, Adoptions and Maintenavce Act, 1956, was sufficient authority. The leanred that teil Judge, theefore proceeded to declare that defendant were nothe legal heris of deceased Tukaram, and therfore they did not hae any right, title or inerest in for the properties left byhim except the claim for maintenace. He also directed the defendant deliver possession of all the properties to the plaintiff .The plaintff who were four in number were entitled to 1 4 share in the said properties. Usual directions under O. XX, R 12 (1) ( c), Civil P.C. were also given. The learned trial Judge also decreed that defendant 1 do recover Rs, 2,400 per year as maintencce till the becomes major from Jan 1983 and similarly defedant 2 do recover Rs. 2,400 per years as maintenace for her life from jan 1983 as long as she remained unmarried. Charge was kept on the properties for the maintenace of both the defedants. This was done by the learned trial Judge by his judgement and order deated 14th Deceber, 1982.
13. The next judgement which has been relied upn by Mr. Tipnis is the one in Laxmibai v. limbabai, . In this judgement, Masodkar, J. Succession Act, and also the proviiosn of S. 16, Hindu Marraige Act. But, unfortunately, the definition of "related" to be found in s. 3(1) Hindu Succession Act, was not considered in this judgement. The learned single Judge, after noticing that legitimacy a has been conferred upon the children of void maraige by s, 16, Hindu Marriage Act, obseved that its effect must be worked out. He therefore, proceeded ot hold that the effect of legitimacy of is to confer the fither in or to the property of the parent. The question whether s. 16 Hindu, Marriage Act controlled s. 3(1)(j), Hindu Succession Act, or vice versa was not considered at all and, therefore nmot answered.
14. In another judgement, namely, in Raghunath, v, nana, (1985) 87 Bom LR 488, the correctness of the decision in Lammibais case (supra) has ben accepted by parakh, J. There is no independent discussion of the question whichis before us.