Alka Hanumant Salunkhe & Ors. v. Dwarkabai Hanumant Salunkhe & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. There is no dispute that the appellant no.1 Alkabai was married to late Hanumant in the year 19599, while his marriage with Smt. Dwarkabai was subsisting. The lower appellate Court therefore held that under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Alkabai’s marriage…
- Para 44. The Revision is rejected summarily but it is clarified that the impugned decision of the Lower Appellate Court is only in respect of the claim on pensionary benefits and it would not preclude any of the appellants from raising their claim in the property…
Judgment
Mr.Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr.P.J. Thorat i/b R.A. Thorat for the respondents. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE,J DATED : 12th September 2005. P.C.:
Heard Shri Bodke, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Thorat for the respondent.
There is no dispute that the appellant no.1 Alkabai was married to late Hanumant in the year 19599, while his marriage with Smt. Dwarkabai was subsisting. The lower appellate Court therefore held that under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Alkabai’s marriage with late Hanumant was void. Resultantly, she was not entitled to claim any pensionary benefits or share the same with Dwarkabai. The Lower Appellate Court also did not take into consideration the claim of appellant nos.2 to 7 who are the children of Alkabai.. The Court has noted that appellant nos.2 to 7 were neither unmarried nor minors and therefore, they could not have any claim in the pensionary benefits, which are available only to the dependants who are minors or unmarried of the deceased.
No error could therefore be found with the view taken by the Lower Appellate Court..
The Revision is rejected summarily but it is clarified that the impugned decision of the Lower Appellate Court is only in respect of the claim on pensionary benefits and it would not preclude any of the appellants from raising their claim in the property of late Hanumant, as may be permissible in law. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Sep 2005. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.