® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE25H DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.P.F.C. No.87 OF2016BETWEEN: SRI. BELAKERAPPA B. S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT65YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1C-103, DOS HOUSING COLONY ISRO QUARTERS, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071 NOW RESIDING AT C/O NO.28, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, P R LAYOUT, MARATHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMAPPA H., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT51YEARS, W/O BELAKERAPPA B. RESIDING AT NO.44, 3RD CROSS, SAMEERPURA, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 019. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS R.P.F.C IS FILED UNDER SECTION194) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED0803.2016 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.355/2010 BY THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
AS THE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS R.P.F.C HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S ON2203.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
The present respondent as the petitioner in C. Misc. No.355/2010 had filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the present petitioner arraigning him as respondent in the Court of V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (for brevity, ‘Family court’), seeking a maintenance of `25,000/- per month to her from the respondent and `10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family court was that her marriage with the 3 respondent (present petitioner) took place on 03.06.1982 at Sri Sampangiramaswamy Temple, Bannerghatta, as per Hindu rites and customs out of which wedlock, a male child by name B. Jagadeep was born to her. It was her further averment that though the respondent was working at ISRO and drawing a handsome salary of `50,000/- per month and also had other sources for income like rent, agricultural income etc., he was not caring to maintain her and her family which forced her to file a petition in C.Misc.355/2010. The matter was contested by the respondent therein. In order to prove her case, the petitioner in the Family Court examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P10 and closed her side. The respondent in the Family court examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked five documents as Exs.R1 to R5. After hearing both side, the Family court by its Order dated 08.03.2016 partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein and directed the 4 respondent therein to pay a sum of `4,000/- per month to the petitioner – wife payable to her from the date of filing the petition till her life time or until her re-marriage and `3,000/- towards litigation expenses. Challenging the same, the respondent in the Family court has preferred the present revision petition.
3. The Family Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court.
4. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the memorandum of petition, impugned Judgment and the materials placed before the Court including the Family Court records.
5. The only point that would arise for my consideration is whether the impugned order of the Family Court suffers from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference at the hands of this Court?.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the Trial Court did not properly 5 consider the factor of alleged marriage between the parties. He submitted that undue reliance was given on the evidence of P.W.2 and exhibits P3 and P4, the photographs. He also submitted that admittedly the petitioner herein was already married prior to his alleged marriage with the present respondent. As such, the alleged second marriage since being a void marriage, the respondent herein being the alleged second wife, she is not entitled for maintenance. In his support, he relied upon two Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another reported in (1988) 1 SCC530and Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC188 7. Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that by virtue of the marriage invitation card and evidence of P.W.2 and also the school progress cards, the marital relationship between the parties stands proved and the present petitioner has failed 6 to make out a prima facie case. He further submitted that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., like a Civil Court, a probe regarding the marriage need not be conducted, a prima facie case is sufficient. In his support, he relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another reported in (1999) 7 SCC675 8. The only disputed fact between the parties is the alleged marriage which according to the petitioner in the Family court (alleged wife) has taken place on 03.06.1982 with the respondent therein at Sri Sampangiramaswamy Temple, Bannerghatta. Apart from reiterating the same as P.W.1 in her examination-in- chief, she has also got produced and marked the alleged marriage invitation card at Ex.P1. Stating that out of her marriage with the respondent, a child was born to them, she has produced the birth certificate at Ex.P2. She has produced two photographs at Exs.P3 and P4 stating that they are her family photographs. She has also produced a 7 ration card at Ex.P5 showing the names of her family members including the name of the respondent in it. She has also produced two school reports at Exs.P6 and P7 stated to be belonging to her son B. Jagadeep. She has also got examined one Sri Sundar Raj who is stated to be a Dentist who in his evidence in examination-in-chief has stated that since the petitioner (wife) was his patient and was cordial with him, he knew her and he also attended her marriage with the respondent on invitation. He also stated that he was also invited to the naming ceremony of the child which also he attended and was treated well by the respondent Belekerappa.
9. On the other hand the respondent who denied his alleged marriage with the petitioner got himself examined as R.W.1 and reiterated that there is no marital relationship between the parties. He also denied the parenthood of the child and stated that since he was approaching the petitioner to get the affidavit about his children, at that time the petitioner who was working as 8 ‘Job Typist’ in City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru, collected all particulars about him and she has misused the same. He produced five black and white photographs stating that the same are his marriage photographs with another lady by name Smt. Prameela in 1974.
10. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy’s case (supra), with respect to Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to its two previous Judgments held that the standard of proof in respect of marriage is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC. Once it is admitted that marriage procedure was followed, it is not necessary to further probe into whether such procedure was complete as per Hindu rites. It was also observed in the same Judgment that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is for a summary remedy. Order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties, but the Section only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and parents. 9
11. In Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of Code.
12. In Badshah’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its various previous Judgments including the one in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy’s case and also Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav’s case and was pleased to observe that if the petitioner in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the second wife having married her husband during subsistence of his first marriage is not entitled for maintenance, however, if she has been duped by her husband by concealing his first marriage that his first wife is still alive, then the Courts cannot deny maintenance to her in such a case. It is relying upon Badsha’s case, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein vehemently submitted that the 10 present respondent was aware of the subsistence of the first marriage of the present petitioner with his first wife who was alive as on the date of the alleged second marriage with the present respondent. As such, the present respondent who was the petitioner in the Family court is not entitled for maintenance and he drew the attention of this Court to one sentence in the cross examination of P.W.1 which reads as below: “ It is not true to say that I was not aware that the respondent was leading family life with his wife and children near my house in Nanjappa Block area”. The said sentence when isolated and read would go to show that the petitioner in the Family court is shown to have denied the suggestion that she was not aware of the respondent therein leading family life with his wife and children. A careful analysis of the said sentence goes to show that it is unclear as to whether the knowledge attributed to P.W.1 was prior to her alleged marriage with the respondent or subsequent thereto. 11
13. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 in its entirety goes to show that there is no whisper anywhere either in the examination-in-chief or in her cross examination about P.W.1 having the knowledge of the alleged marriage of R.W.1 with one Smt. Prameela and the other marriage still subsisting between the parties. Though R.W.1 has produced five marriage photographs and contended that it was the first marriage with one Smt. Prameela said to have taken place in 1974, but that itself is not sufficient to hold that knowledge of the said marriage was attributable to P.W.1 at the time of her alleged marriage with R.W.1 on 03.06.1982. Nowhere it was suggested to P.W.1 specifically that the respondent therein was already married to one Prameela in the year 1974 and the same was to the knowledge of P.W.1 as on 03.06.1982.
14. Added to the above, the petitioner in the Family court has also produced the marriage invitation card at Ex.P1. No doubt that by the mere production of an 12 alleged marriage invitation card it cannot be held that such a marriage had taken place between the parties shown therein. Though the evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the contents of Ex.P1, admittedly P.W.2 is a third party and an independent witness who claims himself to be a Dentist under whom P.W.1 was said to have taken treatment. In his evidence he has also stated that she was not just a patient under him but she was also cordial with him. As such, the said Dentist who claims to have aged 69 years as on the date of evidence contends that he attended the marriage of P.W.1 in the year 1982. Though he states that Dattaka Homa was performed by the priest in the marriage, but that itself would not take away the evidentiary value of the said witness whose evidence otherwise proves to be trustworthy. P.W.2 has also stated that he was also invited for the naming ceremony of the child which he attended and was treated well by the respondent Sri Belekerappa. The said 13 witness has successfully withstood the thorough and searching cross examination conducted by the respondent’s side therein. He has also given a detailed account as to how come P.W.1 being a patient would reveal of her family details to him and invite him to her marriage and the reason given by him in that regard is quite believable. He has given some more details as to the naming ceremony of the child including stating that the said ceremony was held in the house of P.W.1. It is in this background when the other documents particularly the photographs at Exs.P3 and P4 are seen, it can be accepted that it appears like family photographs. No doubt it is not a marriage photograph between the parties but looks like a family photograph wherein keeping their child on a scooter a male and female are standing on either side of the scooter. The respondent has taken a contention that without their knowledge somebody has taken the said photograph. But a look at the said photographs does not make it believable as such. On the other hand it is clear from the said photographs that the persons in the 14 photographs have given a pose to the photographer permitting him to take photographs.
15. In addition to this, the ration card at Ex.P5 also goes to show that in the said ration card standing in the name of petitioner-wife, her family members are shown to be herself, the respondent Belekerappa and their alleged son Jagadeep. Even the certificate of birth of the said child which is at Ex.P2 also shows the name of the parents as Meenakshi and Belekerappa who are the parties herein. Therefore, in the absence of material to show that the respondent’s alleged first marriage with Smt. Prameela said to have taken place in 1974 was to the knowledge of the petitioner in the Family court before her marriage with the respondent on 03.06.1982 and the facts which reveal that they led family life together for few years and begot a child by name Jagadeep it cannot be said that the petitioner is a stranger to the respondent and that she cannot claim the status of wife of the respondent for the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The 15 Trial Court has rightly arrived at the said finding after appreciation of evidence placed before it.
16. The evidence of the petitioner that she was neglected and deprived of essentials in life by her husband i.e. the respondent is not specifically denied or disputed from the respondent. No argument on the said aspect and also regarding the quantum of maintenance was addressed by the learned counsel for the present petitioner. As such, the finding of the Family court about the entitlement of the petitioner before it for maintenance and the quantum of maintenance does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER
The petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit. The respondent is entitled for a sum of `6,000/- towards litigation expenses from the petitioner herein which amount is payable by the petitioner to the respondent 16 within four weeks from today in the form of depositing the said amount in the Registry of this Court under intimation to the respondent. In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.1/2016 stands disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Registry to transmit a copy of this Order along with Family court records to the Court of V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE sac*