Woman fails to prove 3-decade marriage

MUMBAI: A division bench of the Bombay high court has rejected the claims of a village woman from Kolhapur who said that a school teacher from Mumbai had married her three decades ago but left her to fend for herself. Instead, the court said that the man's assets would go to another woman he married when he moved to Mumbai in 1982. The woman from the village had no evidence to back her word of marriage.Justice P BMajumdar and R V More heard the case of Radha who said that Ramesh Patil, whoworked as a school teacher in Mumbai, married her at a village called Sarvade inKolhapur in June 1978. Subsequently, Patil moved to Mumbai but Radha never cameto the city. The court was told that Patil would go to the village duringvacations and Radha gave birth to a daughter in 1990.On the otherhand, Shreya, a resident of Borivli, said she was working as Patil's colleagueat a school in Mumbai and married him in December 1982. They had two sons andShreya lived with him until 1999 when Patil left home because he had contractedAIDS. He was traced to Virar and Shreya said she looked after him until he diedin July 2002.Radha said that it was eight days after Patil's deaththat she came to know of it in the village. She then wrote to the school wherehe worked, asking for his gratuity and pension. Shreya, too, asked for the sameand the dispute reached the court.Radha's advocate said she was an"illiterate village lady'' who would "not tell lies'' about her marriage toPatil. He placed on record statements by two brothers of Patil who said Patilhad married Radha in 1978. Thus it was argued that by virtue of Patil's firstmarriage to Radha, his subsequent marriage to Shreya wasvoid.However, the court considered that there was no materialevidence to show that Patil and Radha had been married. There were nophotographs of the marriage ceremony and there was no evidence that Patil eversent money to his village for Radha's maintenance. The priest who hadsuppposedly performed the marriage was also not brought as a witness. Moreover,there were no letters or correspondence between Patil and Radha to show thatthey were a couple and in touch all these years.The high courtobserved that scanned copies of some photographs that were shown as evidence ofRadha's relationship with Patil seemed like "trick photographs''. Radha couldnot even point out Patil in a photograph given by Shreya's advocates despiteclaiming that he was her husband. The judges felt that attempts had been made to"create evidence'' to show that Patil had married Radha.In contrast,Patil's marriage to Shreya was well documented. While marrying her in Mumbai in1982, he had clearly stated that he was a "bachelor'' and later named her as hisnominee for getting his retirement benefits. Thus on the basis of all theevidence, the high court held that Shreya, and not Radha, was the lawfullywedded wife of Patil and thus the true claimant of his property andassets.