Bombay High Court

Court of M.M. Nerlikar: Sangeeta Entitled to Financial Support Despite Alleged Forgery

Updated
Oct 7, 2025 8:40 PM
News Image

Let's dive into the case of Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan and Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan. It's a story of second marriages, alleged forgery, and a fight for financial support.

The Marriage and the Fallout

Gokul and Sangeeta got married on June 3, 2008. It was a second marriage for both. Gokul's first wife passed away, and Sangeeta's first husband, Harish Shinde, was also said to have died. However, trouble started soon after the wedding, with Sangeeta claiming mistreatment and being forced out of the house.

The Maintenance Claim

Sangeeta filed for financial support, saying she couldn't support herself. The court granted her Rs. 4,000 per month, which Gokul opposed, claiming their marriage was not valid because Sangeeta allegedly faked her first husband's death certificate.

"The marriage is not valid," argued Gokul's lawyer.

Gokul's Counterclaims

Gokul didn't stop there. He filed criminal cases against Sangeeta, accusing her of forgery and using fake documents for government benefits. But these cases are still waiting to be decided in court.

Court's Ruling

Despite Gokul's efforts, the court ruled in favor of Sangeeta. The judge, M.M. Nerlikar, emphasized that even if the marriage was not valid, Sangeeta was entitled to financial support, which aims to prevent people from becoming destitute.

"This law is a measure of social justice," the judgment highlighted.

The Legal Battle Continues

Gokul tried to overturn the financial support order, but the court dismissed his petition. The judge pointed out that Gokul couldn't prove Sangeeta's first marriage was still valid, nor did he provide evidence that Harish Shinde was alive.

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided that Sangeeta should continue to receive financial support, reinforcing the idea that the law is there to protect those in need, regardless of complicated marriage histories. The court emphasized the importance of the law in ensuring justice and support for those who might otherwise be left without.

"Sangeeta is entitled to financial support," concluded the judgment.