Karnataka High Court
Shri Basavaraj S/O Bhimarayappa ... vs Smt. Manjula W/O Mallappa Bhajantri ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103137 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI BASAVARAJ
S/O. BHIMARAYAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ARMY,
R/O: SHINDOGI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. POOJA RAJSHEKAR SAVADATTI &
SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. MANJULA W/O. MALLAPPA BHAJANTRI,
CALLS HERSELF AS W/O. BASAVARAJ BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHINDOGI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI NOW RESIDING
AT CHOLACHGUDDA,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE - 587 201.
Digitally signed by
...RESPONDENT
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
(BY SRI SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO. 09/2023, DATED 09.10.2023, BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CMC NO. 124/2016, DATED
20.12.2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BADAMI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section
482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated
09.10.2023 passed in Crl.Rev.P.No.9/2023 by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote and the order dated
20.12.2022 passed in CMC No.124/2016 by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami.
2. The respondent claiming to be wife of the
petitioner has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C
claiming maintenance in CMC No.124/2016 on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami. In the said
petition the respondent contended that she is legally
wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage has been
taken place at Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti on 16.05.211 as
per customs and traditions of their community. After
marriage, the respondent went to the house of the
petitioner to lead marital life with him. During the said
marital life of the respondent and petitioner, one female
child was born on 14.02.2012 and it was born dead. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
petitioner led marital life with the respondent for four
years. Thereafter, the petitioner started consuming liquor
and demanding to bring gold and dowry and harassed the
respondent. Inspite of advice of elders, the petitioner did
not lead marital life with the respondent. The petitioner
drove out the respondent from his house and therefore,
she started residing in her parent's house. On these
grounds she prayed for grant of maintenance. The
respondent -wife further contended that petitioner is
working in the Indian Army and getting monthly salary of
Rs.50,000/- and he is having immovable prosperities and
his earning is Rs.10 lakhs per year.
3. The petitioner in the said petition has filed his
objections and denied the entire case of the respondent
and he has disputed marriage between the respondent and
petitioner. He contended that he married with on Sakkubai
of Kulagod Village, Gokak Taluk on 03.05.2009 and out of
their marriage wedlock two children were born by name
Tejaswini and Samarth. He contended that he has given
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
reply to the notice got issued by the respondent denying
marriage with her and continuing marriage with Sakkubai
having two children. He contended that the respondent is
widow, she is resident of Ron, Gadag Distirct, she is
having immovable properties and she has taken a male
child in adoption. On these grounds he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
4. In order to prove the case, the respondent has
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The petitioner has examined himself as
R.W.1, examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked
documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R10. After hearing arguments
on both sides, the learned Magistrate has formulated
points for consideration and passed the order dated
20.12.2022 granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees
Eight thousand only) from the date of petition till life time
or until she is disentitled for claiming of maintenance and
directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of maintenance.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
5. The petitioner has challenged the said order of
the learned Magistrate in Crl.Rev.P.No.9/2023. The
learned Sessions Judge after hearing arguments on both
sides has dismissed the said Criminal Revision Petition and
confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by
his order dated 09.10.2023. The petitioner has challenged
both orders in this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the learned Magistrate has not taken into
consideration of evidence of R.W.1 and documents
produced by him. Learned Magistrate has swayed away by
Ex.P6 and signature of the petitioner on it. The petitioner
has already married with on Sakkubai on 03.05.2009 and
he is having two children out of that marriage and their
birth certificates are at Ex.R7 and R8. The dependant ID
cards are issued by Army officials to his wife Sakkubai and
his daughter as per Ex.R9 and R10. The said documents
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
itself indicate that the petitioner was already married with
one Sakkubai on 03.05.2009 as the alleged date of
marriage is 16.05.2011 between the petitioner and
respondent. The respondent alleged to have married with
this petitioner during substance of his earlier marriage and
therefore, the marriage is void marriage. Therefore, the
respondent is not entitled for any maintenance. Even the
Revision Court has not taken into consideration of this
aspect and erred in dismissing the Criminal Revision
Petition filed by the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Sangeetha Rathore Vs Naresh Rathore1, where in it is
held that a second wife whose marriage is void on account
of survival of the first marriage would not be legally
wedded wife, and therefore would not be entitled to
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. She has also
placed reliances on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
In Criminal Revision No.4495/2018
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
in the case of Doly Rani Vs Manish Kumar Chanchal2
and decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of
Sunita Vs Sanjay Kumar decided on 12.10.2023. With
these, she prayed to allow the petition.
8. Learned counsel for respondent would contend
that Ex.P-1 is a printed marriage invitation card of the
petitioner with the respondent and it is solemnized on
16.05.2011 at Sri. Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti. Ex.P-7 and
P-8 are photographs of the respondent and petitioner and
the petitioner has admitted the photos in his evidence.
Ex.P-6 is an agreement, which is in writing on the stamp
paper and it is signed by petitioner and respondent and
other witnesses, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he
has married to the respondent.
9. Ex.P-10 establishes that the respondent had
delivered a fresh still born female fetus on 14.02.2012 and
her name is shown as Smt. Manjula Basavaraj Bajantri in
it. Ex.P-11 shows that respondent-Manjula is resident of
Reported in 2024 INSC 355
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
Shindogi village. Considering all these aspects, the learned
Magistrate and Sessions Judge have rightly passed the
impugned orders. The petitioner has not made out any
grounds for quashing the said impugned orders. With this,
he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused impugned orders and trial Court records.
Considering the grounds urged by them, the following
point arises for consideration:
i. Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds for setting aside the order dated
20.12.2022 passed in CMC No.124/216, by
Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami
and the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in
Crl.R.P.No.9/2023 by Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkote?
11. My answer to the above point is in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
12. It is the case of the respondent in her petition
filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance is
that, she is married to the petitioner on 16.05.2011 and
she led marital life with him for four years. The petitioner
in his reply to the notice got issued by the respondent has
denied his marriage with the respondent and contended
that he is married to one Sakkubai and out of that
marriage, two children were born by name Tejaswini and
Samarth.
13. In order to establish the said marriage, the
respondent-wife has relied on the documents i.e., Ex.P-1
printed marriage invitation card, two photographs-Exs.P-7
and P-8 and agreement i.e., writing on a stamp paper-
Ex.P-6. As per Ex.P-1, the marriage of respondent with the
petitioner has taken place on 16.05.2011 at Sri. Sai Baba
Temple, Saudatti. Ex.R-5 is a certificate issued by Shri.
Shirdi Saibaba Sadbhakta Mandali Samiti, Saundatti,
wherein, it is stated that no marriages will be performed in
Sri. Sai Baba Mandir and no marriage has been performed
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
on 16.05.2011 between Manjula and Basavaraj in the
temple.
14. Ex.P-6 is an agreement-writing on a bond paper
and it is stated to be signed by petitioner-Basavaraj
Bajantri and respondent-Manjula Bajantri. Even though,
RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted his signature
on Ex.P-6 but has stated that his signature can be done by
any other person. In Ex.P-6, it is stated that petitioner-
Basavaraj was having some physical relationship with
respondent-Manjula who is a daughter of his maternal
uncle and he has decided to marry her even though he is
already married. The said stamp paper has been
purchased on 23.11.2011. In the said Ex.P-6, there is no
mention of any marriage on 16.05.2011 between
petitioner and respondent in Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti.
15. As per Ex.P-1, the date of marriage of petitioner
with respondent is 16.05.2011 and even though Ex.P-6 is
subsequent to the said date, there is no mention regarding
the marriage of petitioner with the respondent. In Ex.P-6,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
it is stated that petitioner-Basavaraj has already married.
In the said aspect, the contention of the petitioner-
Basavaraj is that he is already married to one Sakkubai
and having two children born out of that marriage. Ex.R-6
is a printed marriage invitation card of the marriage of
petitioner-Basavraj with one Sakkubai D/o Hanumanth U.
Bhajantri and she is resident of Kulagod Village and date
of marriage is 03.05.2009.
16. Ex.R-7 is birth certificate of Tejaswini Basavaraj
Bajantri and date of birth is 24.02.2010 wherein, name of
mother is shown as Sakkubai Basavaraj Bajantri and name
of father is shown as Basavaraj Bhimappa Bajantri. The
place of birth is Kulagod Village, Gokak Taluk and
residence of parents is shown as Shindogi village in
Saudatti Taluk. The date of registration is 11.03.2010. The
said birth has been registered with Birth and Death
Registrar, City Muncipality, Gokak. In Ex.R-6, the parents
place of Sakkubai- the wife of petitioner-Basavaraj is
stated as Kulagod Village in Gokak Taluk and Tejaswini
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
being first child, her birth has taken place in the parents
place of the said Sakkubai i.e., Kulagod Village, Gokak
Taluk.
17. Ex.R-8 is Birth certificate of Samarth, wherein,
the name of mother is shown as Sakkubai and name of
father is shown as Basavaraj B.B. The date of birth is
06.02.2013. The said birth certificate has been registered
with Birth and Death Registrar Nagar Nigam, Meerut. The
said birth of Samarth has taken place in Meerut and place
of parents at the time of birth of the child is shown as 19
ENGR REGT 191 Company Lekha Nagar, Meerut. The
permanent address of parents is shown as Shindogi village
in Saudatti Taluk. The said birth is registered on
04.10.2013. Ex.R-7 and R-8 clearly establishes that two
children were born to petitioner-Basavaraj and Sakkubai
out of their marriage. The petitioner-Basavaraj is in
service in Indian Army. Ex.R-9 is dependent identity card
of Sakkubai Basavaraj B. wherein, she is shown as wife of
Basavaraj B.B and it is issued by Commanding officer,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
Engineer Regiment and date of issue is 02.07.2012. Ex.R-
10 is dependent identity card of Tejaswini, wherein, it is
shown that she is daughter of Basavaraj B. B and it is
issued on 29.11.2016. The joint photograph of petitioner
with his wife is affixed on Ex.R-9. The said documents
clearly establishes that petitioner-Basavaraj was married
to one Sakkubai prior to the alleged marriage of
respondent-Manjula with petitioner-Basavaraj dated
16.05.2011.
18. Ex.P-9 is Aadhar card of respondent- Manjula
wherein, her name is shown as Manjula Bhajantri C/o
Yallappa and residence is shown as Janata plot, Ward
No.11, Ron and date of issue is 14.10.2011. The name of
father of respondent-Manjula as shown in Ex.P-6 is
Yellappa Bhajantri. Even though Ex.P-9 Aadhar card issued
on 14.12.2011, her husband's name Basavaraj is not
shown in it. As on the date of issue of Ex.P-9-Aadhar card,
the respondent- Manjula was residing in Janata Plot, Ward
No.11, Ron.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
19. Ex.P-11 is Residence certificate of respondent
issued by President, Gram Panchayat, Shindogi, it does
not contain the name of the village in which she is residing
and the name of village is left blank in it. After marriage, if
the respondent-Manjula is residing in Shindogi that ought
to have been mentioned in her Aadhar card Ex.P-9 which
has been issued on 14.12.2011 as the alleged marriage
took place on 16.05.2011.
20. Even if documents produced by the respondent-
Manjula establishes her marriage with petitioner-Basavaraj
i.e. a second marriage during subsistence of his first
marriage with Sakkubai. Therefore, the said marriage of
petitioner with respondent is not a valid marriage. The
respondent is daughter of maternal uncle of petitioner and
therefore, she is aware of marriage of petitioner with
Sakkubai. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions
Judge have failed to take into consideration the said
aspects. The learned Magistrate has not considered the
documents produced by the petitioner i.e., Ex.R-2-Reply
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
notice, Ex.R-6 Marriage invitation card. Ex.R-7 and R-8 -
Birth certificates, Ex.R-9 and R-10 -dependent identity
cards.
21. The learned Magistrate has erred in holding that
the marriage of respondent with the petitioner has been
proved by the respondent-Manjula and she is entitled for
maintenance. Even the learned Sessions Judge has also
erred in holding so, without considering the documents
produced by the petitioner-Basavaraj. In view of the above
order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate
and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, requires to be set
aside.
22. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 09.10.2023, passed
in Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2023 by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604
Bagalkote and the order dated 20.12.2022 in
CMC No.124/2016 passed by the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Badami are set aside.
iii. The amount in deposit, deposited by the
petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP para:1-7
RKM para:8-end
