S.N. Satyanarayana J.

1. The defendant in OS. No.1/2007, who is also respondent in MC.No.6/2007 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore has come up in these two appeals impugning the common judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 which is passed in OS.No.1/2007, MC.No.6/2007 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007. All these three proceedings are initiated by Smt. R.G. Shashikala d/o Siddanagowda claiming herself to be the wife of A. Sai Kumar defendant/respondent in the aforesaid three proceedings.

2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:-The case of plaintiff -Smt. Shashikala in O.S. No.1/2007 is that she is the legally wedded wife of A. Sai Kumar appellant herein. Their marriage was solemnised on 1.1.2004 at Ramagondanahalli village, Davanagere. According to her, their marriage was solemnised as per the Hindu customs. After the marriage on 1.1.2004 they lived as husband and wife up to September 2006 at Bangalore. It is the case of plaintiff that her alleged husband Sri. Sai Kumar demanded dowry and started harassing her. Thereafter, without any valid reason he threw her out of the matrimonial house on 16.9.2006. Since that day she has been residing in her parents house in the fond hope that her husband, Sri. Saikumar would come and take her along with him. Accordingly, when she was waiting for her husband to come and take her she came to know through her friends that her husband Sri. Saikumar is trying to get married for the second time and that when she contacted him along with her parents and tried to convince him not to take such extreme step, he insisted that he would get married for the second time.

3. Hence, she issued a notice to him calling upon him to take her back to matrimonial house and to continue to live in matrimony with her. Since defendant refused to either take her back to matrimonial house or to maintain her and has deliberately neglected and rejected to maintain her, she is forced to initiate the aforesaid three proceedings; the original suit in OS. No.1/2007 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from getting married for the second time, MC.No.6/2007 for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 for the relief of maintenance at Rs.15,000/-pm., pending disposal of other proceedings initiated by her.

4. In the said proceedings, after service of notice defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed written statement in the original suit and statement of objections in the other two proceedings. Wherein, the first and foremost objection that he has taken is that he is not married to plaintiff-Smt. Shashikala. He denied the alleged marriage said to have taken place on 1.1.12004 or on any other dates. According to him, he is native of Pullampet village in Cuddapha District of Andra Pradesh. That on 1.1.2004 he was busy in participating the annual pooja of Saibaba. Therefore, the allegation of his marriage with plaintiff on aforesaid date is without basis. He also denied the relationship of husband and wife between himself and plaintiff. According to him, he met plaintiff-Smt. Shashikala for the first time in December 2005 in a social gathering at Mysore at the instance of his friends Devendrappa, Ravikumar and Prasanna. In the year 2006 March for the first time plaintiff visited him in Bangalore at his office. Subsequently, after few visits, expressed her desire to marry him. Since caste, educational qualification, age, food habits, family circumstances and social background of himself and plaintiff being different, he did not initially agree to marry her. However, plaintiff continued to meet him in his office during working hours, which prompted acquaintance to turn into friendship.

5. It is stated that due to persuasion of Shashikala Saikumar agreed to get married to her. Since he was sure that his parents would not agree to celebrate the same, he accepted the proposal of Shashikala to get married in the office of the Marr