[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nirmala Bai vs Smt. Pushabai on 1 December, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 3193 of 2023
Reserved on : 13.10.2025
Pronounced on : 01.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3193 OF 2023 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NIRMALA BAI,
W/O LATE MADHAV RAO,
AND W/O CHANDURAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR No.117, EWS,
HANDICAPPED COLONY,
BADAMKAN NR MOHALLA,
MYSORE 570007.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by VALLI (BY SRI GURUDATH B. S., ADVOCATE)
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. PUSHPABAI,
W/O CHANDU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT D.No.8, BHADRA BLOCK,
JYOTHINAGAR,
MYSORE 570019.
AND ALSO AT
ARSI, 21C BLOCK,
NEAR URDU SCHOOL,
VIGILANCE, MAHADEV
UPSTAIRS, 1ST FLOOR,
-2-
MFA No. 3193 of 2023
JYOTHINAGAR,
POLICE QUARTERS
NEAR BHADRA BLOCK OPPOSITE,
MYSORE 570019.
2. SRI. CHANDU RAO,
S/O VIJENDRA RAO DUMALE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT D No.8, BHADRA BLOCK,
JYOTHINAGAR, MYSORE 570019,
AND ALSO AT ARSI, 21C BLOCK,
NEAR URDU SCHOOL,
VIGILANCE, MAHADEV
UPSTAIRS, 1ST FLOOR,
JYOTHINAGAR,
POLICE QUARTERS NEAR,
BHADRA BLOCK OPPOSITE,
MYSORE 570019.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.03.2023 PASSED IN O.S.No.18/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri B.S. Gurudath, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served, but remain
unrepresented.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their ranks before the III Additional Principal Family
Judge, Mysuru1.
The appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was
the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No.2 before
the Family Court.
3. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.18/2022,
assailing the judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Family
Court.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is
the legally wedded wife of defendant No.2; and for a
permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 from changing
her name in his service register, and further restraining
Family Court
defendant No.1 from interfering with the matrimonial life of the
plaintiff and defendant No.2.
4.1 Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the
plaint averments and contending that she is the legally wedded
wife of defendant No.2, their marriage having been solemnized
on 13.05.2005 at Nimishamba Temple, Srirangapatna. It is
further pleaded that defendant No.1 is a widow with two
children and that her marriage with defendant No.2 was duly
performed. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 filed a
petition under Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732, seeking maintenance, which came to be
allowed by the Principal Family Court, Mysuru, directing
defendant No.2 to pay maintenance. Various documents were
marked in support of her case.
4.2 Defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting his
marriage with the plaintiff, which was solemnized on
11.06.1995 at Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Kalkunike, Hunsur
Town, Mysuru District, and also admitting that two children
were born from the said wedlock.
Cr.P.C.
4.3. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on
record, held that the marriage between the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 was solemnized much prior to the marriage
claimed by defendant No.1 with defendant No.2. The Family
Court further observed that the marriage between the plaintiff
and defendant No.2 was not disputed by defendant No.1. It
was, therefore, held that in view of Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 19553, the marriage of defendant No.1 with
defendant No.2 is void. Accordingly, the Family Court decreed
the suit declaring the plaintiff to be the legally wedded wife of
defendant No.2, restrained defendant No.2 from changing the
name of the plaintiff in his service records, and further
restrained defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful
marital life of the plaintiff with defendant No.2.
5. Sri B.S. Gurudath, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that the Family Court committed an error in not
appreciating that defendant No.1 had proved her marriage with
defendant No.2, which was solemnized on 13.05.2005 at
Nimishamba Temple, Srirangapatna. Learned counsel further
submits that in the petition filed under Sections 125 and 127 of
the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance, defendant No.2 had not
Act
disputed the relationship and had paid maintenance to
defendant No.1. The order granting maintenance has not been
challenged by the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that
defendant No.1 has established her marriage with defendant
No.2. Learned counsel contends that, in the light of the
evidence on record, the decree declaring the plaintiff as the
legally wedded wife of defendant No.2 is erroneous.
6. The respondents, though served, have chosen not to
appear before this Court. Hence, service of notice is held to be
sufficient. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to decide the
appeal on the basis of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the material available on record.
7. It is evident from the record that the marriage between
the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was solemnized on 11.06.1995
at Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Kalkunike, Hunsur Town, Mysuru
District, and that they have been blessed with two children
aged about 25 and 15 years. The evidence on record
establishes the factum of their marriage. Furthermore, the
subsistence of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant
No.2 is not disputed by defendant No.1.
8. The defence of defendant No.1 is that her marriage with
defendant No.2 was solemnized on 13.05.2005 at Nimishamba
Temple, Srirangapatna, and that the Family Court, while
entertaining her petition under Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C.,
had ordered maintenance, which was complied with by
defendant No.2. It is, therefore, contended that the marriage
of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 stands proved.
9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, it is evident that the marriage between the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 solemnized on 11.06.1995 stands proved. Even
if the evidence led by defendant No.1 is accepted as proved, it
would only establish that a marriage ceremony between
defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was performed, but not its
validity in law. The order passed by the Family Court in
Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 is of no assistance to defendant No.1, as
the said order does not deal with the validity of the alleged
marriage. The acceptance of the order of maintenance, at the
most, may prove the factum of marriage between defendant
No.1 and defendant No.2, but not its legal validity. The issue
that arises for consideration in the present case is the validity
of the said marriage.
10. The Family Court has recorded a finding that the marriage
between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, solemnized on
11.06.1995, stands proved. It has further held that the
marriage between defendant Nos.1 and 2, said to have been
solemnized on 13.05.2005, even if accepted, is void in view of
Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Act. The Family Court,
upon considering the evidence on record, held that the
marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is valid. It
further found that the marriage asserted to have been
contracted between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took place during
the subsistence of the valid marriage between the plaintiff and
defendant No.2. The Family Court therefore concluded that, in
view of Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Act, the marriage
between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is void.
11. The finding recorded by the Family Court is based on the
evidence on record and is in conformity with Sections 5 and 11
of the Act. No contrary material has been placed before this
Court for consideration. Upon perusal of the record, we find no
reason to differ from the findings rendered by the Family Court.
12. Despite the aforesaid legal position, a lawful right is
nevertheless available to the second wife to claim maintenance
under the Act [(2004) 9 SCC 617]. Further, in a suit for
partition, the second wife would be entitled to a share in the
property to the extent of the share devolving upon the husband
[(2020) 11 SCC 232]. These rights, however, do not, by
themselves, validate the second marriage, which would
otherwise be hit by the provisions of Section 5 read with
Section 11 of the Act.
13. Under the circumstances, the decree of permanent
injunction would militate against the aforesaid legal rights of
the appellant. Moreover, the very enforceability of a decree of
permanent injunction in matters pertaining to marital
relationships is itself doubtful. Therefore, the decree of
permanent injunction requires modification. We accordingly
hold that the appellant is permanently restrained from
interfering in the relationship between defendant Nos. 1 and 2,
except to the extent that she may lawfully and validly assert
her legal rights against her husband.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view
that the order of the Family Court is well-reasoned, is
supported by the evidence on record, and that the appellant
has not made out any ground warranting interference
therewith.
- 10 -
15. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
