Channakeshava vs Nirmala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3826 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                         PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

                 M.F.A.No. 6412/2019 (MC)

BETWEEN :
CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O PATEL H.A BACHANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT HUNASEHALLI VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562114.

                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)

AND :
NIRMALA
W/O CHANNAKESHAVA
(NOT ADMITTED BY THE PETITIONER)
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NAMBIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI. MALUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562114.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
                         -2-
     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.07.2019 PASSED IN MC NO.08/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband

against the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.7.2019

passed in M.C.8/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Malur allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife

under the provision of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for

Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the respondent is not at all wife and not

entitled for the Decree of Conjugal Rights and the Trial Court

has not given an opportunity to the appellant to put forth this

case, hence prays to allow the appeal. After careful perusal of

the impugned order, the present appellant is represented by a

learned counsel and did not file any objection to the main

petition, nor adduced any evidence and nor cross examined

any witnesses.

3. The Trial Court after considering the documents

produced at the Ex.P1 to 5 observed that marriage of the

appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22.11.2007 and

in view of the grounds urged by the respondent-wife in

M.C.No.8/2018, the prayer of Restitution of Conjugal Rights

allowed.

4. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the

present respondent-Nirmala also filed CMC.No.16/2012 before

the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maluru, claiming that

she is legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage

took place on 22.11.2007 and thereby, she claims the

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month. It was hotly opposed

by the learned appellant. The learned Trial Judge after

considering the oral evidence of PW1, RW1 and documentary

evidence produced at Exs.P1 to P64 and Exs.R1 to R5 came to

conclusion that, the present respondent, who is the wife of the

appellant is entitled for maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month.

Accordingly, the order came to be passed on 21.11.2019 in

CMC.No.16/2012, by granting maintenance. It is clear that

according to the finding in Paragraph 12 of the said order that

during the cross-examination of RW1, appellant clearly

admitted the signature of father in Lagna Pathrika and

admitted the execution of release deed in favour of his first

wife Varalakshmi. They have produced genealogy in Ex.P19.

On perusal of Ex.P19, it is clear that the father of the appellant

has given genealogy showing respondent and one Varalakshmi

as wives of the present appellant. And it is admitted by

present appellant during his cross-examination. By this

admission, it is clear that the respondent is the wife of the

appellant. (present respondent-Nirmla is wife of present

appellant-Channakeshava).

5. The order passed by the Family Court granting interim

maintenance to respondent and declaring the appellant is

husband of respondent which was the subject matter of

Criminal Revision Petition No.3/2020 filed by the present

appellant before the District and Sessiond Judge, Kolar. The

learned District and Sessions Judge Kolar, considering the

entire material on record, dismissed the Criminal Revision

Petition No.3/2020 on 1.9.2021 and the said Criminal Revision

Petition confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court granting

maintenance. Therefore prima facie the contention raised by

the learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal

cannot be accepted.

At this stage Sri.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the

appellant filed memo to withdraw the present appeal.

The memo placed on record and the appeal is dismissed

as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV