Smt.Girijamma W/O Shekar Reddy vs Sri.Shekar Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 845 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                 R.P.F.C.No.100024/2017

BETWEEN:

Smt. Girijamma
W/o. Shekar Reddy
D/o. Pompanna
Aged about 46 years
R/o. Madire Village
Kolur Post, Ballari Taluk and Dist. 583 101.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(By Smt. V. Vidya Iyer and Sri. K. Raghavendra Rao,
Advocates)

AND:

Sri. Shekar Reddy, S/o. Jambanna Gouda
Aged about 39 years
Occ: Business & Agriculturist
Madire Village, Kolur Post
Ballari Taluk and Dist. 583 101.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(By Sri. A. J. Kattimani and Sri. B. S. Patil, Advocate)


     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI IN
CRL.M.C.NO.231/2015 DATED 02.01.2016 AND ALLOW
THIS REVISION PETITION.
                              2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioner who claims to be the wife of

the respondent has filed this revision petition

challenging the order dated 02.01.2016 passed

in Crl.Misc.No.231/2015 by the Court of

Principal Judge, Family Court at Ballari.

2. The brief facts of the case that would

be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are:

The petitioner claims to be the legally

wedded wife of the respondent and contends

that her marriage was solemanized with the

respondent on 02.05.1985 at Kolur Village. It is

also her case that, at the time of her marriage,

respondent received dowry amount of `50,000/-

from her and also gold jewels. The petitioner

had contended in the petition that, she had led a

happy married life with the respondent for few

days after marriage and thereafterwards, having

regard to the ill-treatment meted out on her,

she was constrained to leave the company of her

husband and she started residing separately. It

is her further case that, the respondent

subsequently married one Hemavathi and from

the said wedlock, the respondent has five

children. She contended that the respondent

had failed to maintain her though he has got

sufficient income and therefore, she had filed a

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking

maintenance of `20,000/- per month and

litigation expenses of `20,000/- from the

respondent.

The respondent had entered appearance in

the said proceedings and filed a detailed

statement of objections and had denied the

marital relationship with the petitioner.

Before the Family Court, to substantiate

her case, petitioner had examined herself as

PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as

PWs. 2 and 3 and had got marked 14 documents

as Exs. P1 to P14. On the other hand,

respondent had examined himself as RW1 and

four witnesses were examined as RWs. 2 to 5

and 14 documents were marked in support of

the defence at Exs.R1 to R14. The learned

Judge of the Family Court thereafterwards heard

the arguments addressed on both sides and vide

the impugned order has dismissed the petition.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-wife

is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Family Court has erred in

passing the impugned order. She submits that

the oral and documentary evidence available on

record have not been properly appreciated by

the Family Court. She has relied upon the

Election ID of PW1 at Ex.P12 and also the group

photo at Ex.P13 and contends that the petitioner

has prima facie established before the Family

Court that she is the legally wedded wife of the

respondent and in spite of the same, the Family

Court had proceeded to dismiss the petition filed

under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. She submits that the

respondent has got sufficient means to maintain

the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife

and therefore, the Family Court ought to have

entertained the maintenance petition filed by the

petitioner. She also submits that, immediately

after the marriage, because of the ill-treatment

meted out on her, the petitioner was constrained

to leave the company of the husband and ever

since then, for a period of 30 years, she was

earning and maintaining herself and because of

her age and health condition, she was

constrained to file the petition seeking

maintenance.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent strenuously argued in support of the

order impugned passed by the Family Court and

submits that the material on record would

clearly show that the petitioner is not the legally

wedded wife of the respondent. He submits that

the material on record would go to show that the

petitioner-wife was aged about 12 years at the

time of her marriage and she had admitted the

same during the course of her deposition. He

refers to the group photograph at Ex.P13 and

submits that, a perusal of the same would go to

show that the petitioner was aged much more

than 12 years and therefore, it cannot be

believed that the petitioner was the wife of the

respondent. He submits that, according to the

petitioner, she lived with the respondent only

for few days after the marriage, but during the

course of her evidence, all the witnesses

including the petitioner have said she had lived

with the respondent for a period of nearly five

years. He submits that the material on record

would go to show that the respondent was

married to one Smt.Hemavathi and they had got

five children from the said marriage. The first

child was born to the said couple on 01.07.1988

and therefore, it is highly impossible that the

petitioner would have lived with the respondent

for a period of five years from the date of her

marriage. He therefore, prays to dismiss the

petition.

5. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and perused the material on record.

6. The petitioner contends that she is the

wife of the respondent who had married her on

02.05.1985. It is stated in her petition filed

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she had lived

with her husband and led happy married life

only for few days after the marriage and

thereafterwars, she was constrained to leave his

company having regard to the ill-treatment

meted out by him on her. The petitioner has

examined herself as PW.1 and two other

witnesses have been examined as PWs.2 and 3,

who have categorically stated during the

examination-in-chief that the petitioner lived

with the respondent after the marriage for a

period of about 5 years happily and

thereafterwards, there was some

misunderstanding between the couple. The

respondent has contended that he has married

Smt.Hemavathi on 16.01.1985 and from the said

wedlock, they have got five children. The

marriage invitation card of the respondent with

Smt.Hemavathi is produced at Ex.R1. The

photographs of the respondent with

Smt.Hemavathi is also produced. Exs.R4 to R8

and Ex.R12 are the marks card, ID proof and

Aadhar cards of the children born to the

respondent and Smt.Hemavathi. The first child

has been born out of the said wedlock on

01.07.1988. Therefore, it is evident that the

respondent was married to Smt.Hemavathi and

they were leading a married life prior to 1988.

If that is so, the contention of the petitioner

that her marriage had taken place with the

respondent on 02.05.1985 and for a period of

five years they had lived a happy married life

appears to be prima facie false.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed strong reliance on Ex.P13,

the group photograph, wherein the petitioner is

found sitting besides the respondent. A perusal

of the said photograph would to go show that,

the lady sitting near the respondent is aged

much more than 12 years. According to the

petitioner, she was aged about 12 years at the

time of marriage and she had lived with her

husband only for few days after the marriage.

Therefore, the photograph even if it is presumed

to be true, would have been taken immediately

after the marriage of the petitioner with the

respondent. Except the said photograph and

election ID card, the petitioner has not produced

any other material to show that she is the

legally wedded wife of the respondent. As per

the election ID card, which has been issued on

01.10.1995, the petitioner's age as on

01.01.1994 was 21 years. Therefore, even

according to this document, the age of the

petitioner in the year 1985 would be only 12

years. Therefore, it becomes highly doubtful

that the petitioner was married to the

respondent on 02.05.1985 as contended by her

when she was aged about 12 years.

8. During the course of her examination-

in-chief before the Family Court, the petitioner

has deposed that the respondent was demanding

dowry from her and he used to consume alcohol

and assault her. She further deposed that, after

the marriage she had conceived and when she

was pregnant, respondent had mixed poison in

the milk and made her to drink the same and as

a result, she had suffered a miscarriage and on

another occasion, he had attempted to kill her

and she had escaped from his clutches and

thereafterwards, took shelter in her parents'

house. All these aspects have not at all been

averred in the petition filed by her under Section

125 Cr.P.C. It is for the first time she has made

such a statement before the Family Court. The

same becomes highly improbable for the reason

that she had stated in the petition that she had

lived only for few days with the husband after

her marriage.

9. Further, if her age is considered as per

the documentary evidence available on record,

the petitioner was aged only 12 years at the

time of her marriage. The petitioner has not

examined any one of her close relative in

support of her case. They would have been the

best witnesses to substantiate the case of the

petitioner, more so for the reason that the

petitioner was aged about only 12 years as on

the date of her marriage. The witnesses who

have been examined in support of the

petitioner's case are her neighbors. The have

stated that the petitioner had married the

respondent on 02.05.1985 and they were living

happily as husband and wife for a period of five

years. PW2 has stated that he is not aware that

the respondent is married to Hemavathi,

whereas PW3 has stated that the respondent had

married Hemavathi only about five years prior to

the filing of the petition seeking maintenance.

Therefore, the evidence led by the petitioner in

support of her case contradicts each other and

when the said oral evidence is looked into along

with the documentary evidence available on

record, prima facie it is difficult even to believe

that the petitioner was married to the

respondent on 02.05.1985 as contended by her.

Under the circumstances, the learned Judge of

the Family Court has rightly dismissed the

maintenance petition filed by the petitioner-

wife.

10. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner has produced the copy of the original

of the documents said to be the alleged

marriage invitation card of the petitioner with

the respondent, by filing an application under

Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the same cannot be

entertained for the reason that the petitioner

has not produced the same before the Family

Court, though undisputedly, she was in

possession of the said document. Under the

circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the

said document and the petitioner has not made

out a case as provided under Order 41 Rule 27

of CPC to entertain the additional documents,

which is sought to be produced at this stage.

Accordingly, I.A.2/2017 is liable to be rejected.

11. On appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, I am

of the considered view that the said order

passed by the Family Court does not suffer from

any illegality or irregularity, which calls for

interference by this Court. Accordingly, I

decline to entertain this petition.

Revision petition is therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab