Smt. Girija vs Sri. Rajashekhara
2026 Latest Caselaw 2301 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Girija vs Sri. Rajashekhara on 13 March, 2026

                            -1-
                                   RPFC No.216 of 2023



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.216 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SMT. GIRIJA
W/O RAJASHEKHARA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/AT NO.LIG 1037,
5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
SHARADEVINAGARA,
MYSURU-570022.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAJASHEKHARA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2792/3, 2ND MAIN,
1ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
MYSURU-570014.
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION - ABSENT)

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2023 PASSED IN Crl.MIS.586/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner/wife

seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2023

in Crl.Misc.No.586/2022 on the file of the II Additional

Principal Family Court, Mysuru ('the Family Court', for

short) and award maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per

month to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is second wife and respondent is

husband.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized approximately 25 years ago at

Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjanagudu. The petitioner is

the second wife of the respondent. The marriage having

been solemnized with the consent of his first wife,

Smt.Susheela, as no issues were born out of the first

wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioner commenced

her matrimonial life with the respondent in a rented house

at Mysuru. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner gave

birth to three male children, including male twins during

her second delivery. Out of the twin children, one male

child was forcibly taken by the respondent and handed

over to his first wife. Subsequent to the birth of the

children, the respondent resumed cohabitation with his

first wife, neglecting and ignoring the petitioner.

4. The respondent failed to provide financial

assistance, neglected the education and welfare of the

remaining two children residing with the petitioner, and

did not pay the house rent, compelling the petitioner to

work as a housemaid at various places to sustain herself

and educate her two children. A panchayath was

convened, wherein, it was resolved that the respondent

would look after the basic needs of the petitioner and the

two children, to which he agreed. However, he failed to

comply with the said resolution except for paying the

house rent. Despite repeated requests by the petitioner to

permit her to reside with him, the respondent deserted her

and failed to provide maintenance, constraining the

petitioner to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C' for short) before

the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per

month.

5. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance before the Family Court and filed a detailed

statement of objections seeking dismissal of the

maintenance petition. The petitioner examined herself as

PW1 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, while the

respondent examined himself as RW1 and marked

documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

6. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, the Family Court has framed following issues for

its consideration:-

(a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance as prayed in the petition?

7. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, the Family Court rejected the petition filed by

the 2nd wife-petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and

held that the petitioner - wife was not entitled to

maintenance from the respondent as claimed in the

petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated

14.08.2023, the petitioner has preferred the present

petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the Family Court has failed to properly

appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced

by the petitioner, including Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, which,

according to the petitioner, sufficiently established the

income of the respondent/husband. The Family Court has

not considered the income of the respondent/husband,

who is stated to be earning more than Rs.1,30,000/- per

month and also drawing pension of more than Rs.12,000/-

per month, apart from income derived from other business

activities. Despite such material on record, the Family

Court is stated to have dismissed the petition without

proper evaluation of the documentary evidence. The

petitioner contends that she is entitled to maintenance of

more than Rs.25,000/- per month, inclusive of house rent,

medical expenses and other basic amenities.

10. It is contended that the respondent, though

having entered appearance, has neither produced any

documentary evidence nor led cogent evidence to disprove

the marital relationship. In the absence of rebuttal

evidence, mere oral denial could not have been accepted.

The petitioner further urged that she is suffering from

health problems and is unable to bear hospital and medical

expenses on her own. It is contended that the respondent

has failed to provide for her day-to-day expenses, medical

expenditure and the needs of the two children. These

material aspects, according to the petitioner, have not

been adverted to by the Family Court, warranting

interference by this Court and grant appropriate

maintenance.

11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwatha

reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6497.

12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

13. Upon consideration of the material placed on

record and the reasoning assigned by the Family Court,

this Court finds that the Family Court has properly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of both

parties. Though the respondent initially denied the

marriage in his statement of objections, during the course

of cross-examination RW1 admitted that he had married

the petitioner since his first wife Susheela had no children.

The wedding photographs produced at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2

and the documents such as Aadhaar Cards and

educational records of the children (Ex.P3 to Ex.P6)

disclose the name of the respondent as their father.

However, the Family Court has noticed categorical

admission of the petitioner that at the time of the alleged

marriage, the first wife of the respondent was alive. In

view of such admission, the Family Court has rightly

observed that the alleged marriage between the petitioner

and the respondent was in contravention of Section 5(i) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act of 1955' for short) and

consequently, void in terms of Section 11 of the said Act.

14. In that view of the matter, the Family Court has

proceeded to examine the maintainability of the claim

under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C, which provides for

grant of maintenance to a wife, who is unable to maintain

herself. The expression "wife" occurring in the said

provision necessarily refers to a legally wedded wife,

subject to the inclusive definition contained in Explanation

(b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., which includes a divorced

wife who has not remarried. In the present case, the

finding of the Family Court that the petitioner had

knowledge of the subsistence of the first marriage of the

respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner cannot

claim the status of a legally wedded wife. Once the

marriage itself is void under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the

Act of 1955, the petitioner cannot invoke the benefit of

Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a "wife" within the meaning of the

said provision.

15. The Family Court has also taken into

consideration the earlier civil proceedings initiated by the

first wife in O.S.No.17/2014 (also referred to as

O.S.No.14/2017 in the evidence), wherein the dispute

between the parties was settled by way of a compromise

dated 24.04.2017. In support of the said fact, the

respondent has produced a certified copy of compromise

petition as per Ex.R1, certified copy of the order passed in

O.S.No.17/2017 as per Ex.R2 and certified copy of

compromise decree as per Ex.R3. The said compromise

discloses that Smt.Susheela was the legally wedded wife

of the respondent. That the respondent agreed to pay a

sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner-second wife from

his retirement benefits and to provide her with Auto

bearing No.KA-09-7485 for running a fast-food business

for her livelihood. The petitioner has admitted in her cross-

- 10 -

examination the existence of the compromise decree and

receipt of the said amount and vehicle. Therefore, the

Family Court was justified in observing that the

compromise decree passed by a competent Civil Court

cannot be disregarded in a summary proceeding under

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

16. Further, the arrangement recorded in the

compromise decree also attracts the principle contained in

Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., which stipulates that a wife

shall not be entitled to receive maintenance from her

husband if they are living separately by mutual consent.

The compromise dated 24.04.2017 clearly indicates that

the parties had settled their disputes and agreed to live

separately after payment of a lump sum amount and

provision of a means of livelihood to the petitioner. In

addition, the Family Court has also noticed that there was

no cogent evidence to establish that the respondent was

earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month and the available

material only indicated that he was receiving pension of

about Rs.7,000/- per month and earning modest income

- 11 -

through small works. In view of the void nature of the

marriage under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Act of 1955,

the settlement between the parties attracting Section

125(4) of the Cr.P.C., and the absence of proof regarding

the respondent's substantial income, the Family Court has

rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to

maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

17. In view of the above, this Court does not find

any illegality or perversity warranting interference in the

Order of the Family Court.

18. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

MH/-