BAKULBHAI AND ANR. versus GANGARAM & ANR.

BAKULBHAI AND ANR. versus GANGARAM & ANR.

The appellant woman is not entitled to maintenance due to the nullity of her marriage with the respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act, but the child born out of such union is entitled to maintenance, with the amount enhanced due to inflation and growing age; a second revision application is not maintainable, but revision sought on the merits is permitted.

Parties
Appellant: Bakulbai; Appellant: Maroti; Respondent: Gangaram; Respondent: Unknown respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Legitimacy, Hindu Marriage, Revision Jurisdiction
Family Law Criminal Law Maintenance Legitimacy Hindu Marriage Revision Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakulbai

Appellant

Maroti

Appellant

Gangaram

Respondent

Unknown respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement of maintenance for woman married to a Hindu male with living spouse.
  2. 2 Legitimacy and maintenance entitlement of a child born out of such wedlock.
  3. 3 Maintainability of second revision application under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant woman is not entitled to maintenance due to the nullity of her marriage with the respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act, but the child born out of such union is entitled to maintenance, with the amount enhanced due to inflation and growing age; a second revision application is not maintainable, but revision sought on the merits is permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Revision petition before the High Court (except prayer for enhancement) is maintainable.
  • The appellant No. 1 (woman) is not entitled to maintenance.