Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     30 December 2012

14 years after "divorce" bombay hc tells woman she's still


Can someone provide the caselaw for the following news.


14 years after ‘divorce’, Bombay HC tells woman she’s still married

Published: Sunday, Feb 28, 2010, 2:18 IST 
By Mayura Janwalkar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

Puneite Jaya was recently told by the Bombay High Court after seven years of litigation that her second marriage had never really happened because the first one was still valid. She had married widower Amar in 2002 claiming to be a divorcee.

The couple lived together for a little over four months before Jaya walked out. The court was informed that when Amar made enquiries about her earlier marriage he learnt that there was no legal document to support the termination of her first marriage.

Jaya and Prem had married in April 1986 but the relationship ended with a deed of divorce being executed before a notary in May 1996. The two had not procured a divorce from a court of law. A deed of divorce just serves the purpose of an agreement between the parties to seek divorce, however, a divorce can be granted only by a court of law.

Using these facts, Amar filed a petition in the seeking that his marriage with Jaya be declared a nullity as it was in contravention with section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A month later Jaya filed another petition in court seeking divorce from Prem. A civil judge in Baramati dissolved the marriage on the basis of the deed of divorce.

Amar then challenged this order before an additional district judge who set it aside. Justice DB Bhosale and Justice RY Ganoo of the High Court too felt that the order of the Baramati civil court was “wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction”.

Despite the order of the additional district judge, a family court in Pune dismissed Amar’s application seeking the annulment of his marriage with Jaya. The high court, however, set aside the order of the family court.

“Even today, the respondent’s(Jaya) earlier marriage is subsisting.In the circumstances, the marriage of the appellant (Amar) and the respondent deserves to be declared as nullity,” the high court stated.

(names of parties changed to protect identities)

 6 Replies

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     30 December 2012




I think - following is the same judgement. 


can someone provide a copy ?


Court Case No Date of Judgment
High Court of Judicature at Bombay FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.82 OF 2005 01-02-2010
Mahadev Laxman Wachkawade Versus Sou. Sindhu Mahadev Wachkawade
Mr. S.A. Rahanan (Tamboli) . Mr. R.S. Kulkarni .
Judgment Full Text

Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above to view the Full Text of the Judgment. 

Non Members, may send a request by email to for the Full Text of the Judgment (chargeable).

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     30 December 2012

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     30 December 2012

the above is the link to Bombay High Court judgement system.

but the judgement is not available there

also the judgement is not available on


some1 pl provide the judgement.

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     31 December 2012

some1 pl provide the judgement.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     31 December 2012

Help with annexure (PDF)

Attached File : 167717364 mhc on second marriage mahadev laxman wachkawade versus sou. sindhu mahadev wachkawade.pdf downloaded: 63 times
1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     31 December 2012

thank you , Taj

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query