Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
Smt. Shashikala, W/o Muniraja - Appellant
Vs.
Sri. Muniraja, S/o Marappa - Respondent
Rev.Pet Family Court No. 65 Of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Maintenance - Family Law - The court held that the petitioner No.1 is the second wife of the respondent and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children of the respondent. The court relied on evidence including photographs and official documents to establish the marital relationship and entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The court ordered the respondent to pay maintenance to the wife and children based on their needs and the respondent's financial capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The wife and children filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance, claiming that the respondent had deserted the wife and subjected her to cruelty and ill-treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground of failure to prove the marital relationship and legitimacy of the children. However, the High Court found that the evidence, including photographs and official documents, established the marital relationship and entitlement to maintenance.
Issues: Marital relationship and entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that strict proof of marriage is not required when the petitioner alleges that the respondent has suppressed a prior marriage and solemnized a second marriage. The court relied on evidence including photographs and official documents to establish the marital relationship and entitlement to maintenance.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed-in-part, setting aside the Family Court's order and granting maintenance to the wife and children. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance amounts based on the needs of the wife and children and the respondent's financial capacity.
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed by the wife and children calling in question the order granted in Crl.Mis.No.42/2017 dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Principal Family Court at Kolar, in dismissing the petition.
2. The petitioners have stated that they are wife and children of the respondent and respondent has deserted the petitioner No.1 subjecting her to cruelty and ill-treatment. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to live separately and thus, filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. But the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. Therefore, instant petition is filed by the wife and children.
3. Notice issued to the respondent is served, but he has remained absent.
4. The Family Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – children are born out of their wedlock.
5. When the petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance has to be considered in a nature of summary proceedings. The evidence in this regard ought to be appreciated on preponderance of probabilities to find out who is more probable in the case. It is the defense of the respondent that he has married one Shashikala and the petitioner No.1 and respondent are strangers. But, it is the case of the petitioner No.1 that the respondent by suppressing his earlier marriage has solemnized second marriage with the petitioner No.1. Therefore, in this regard, the evidence is considered on all its probabilities to ascertain what would have been occurred. While considering the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not required where the petitioner is alleging that the respondent has suppressed first marriage and solemnized the second marriage. Under these circumstances of the case, it is difficult for the petitioner No.1 to get proof regarding marriage except photographs. Exs.P.6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are the photographs of the petitioner No.1 and respondent standing together with garland which probabilise the case of the petitioners that respondent has married the petitioner No.1. The photographs prove that the petitioner No.1 and respondent are appearing to be a bride and bridegroom, which probabilise the case of the petitioners. Exs.R.1 and 2 might have been marriage invitation card of the first marriage with Shashikala and the respondent might have married one Shashikala prior to second marriage but Ex.P.6 proves that petitioner No.1 and respondent has married the petitioner No.1 as they appear to be dressed as bride and bridegroom and this probabilises the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 married the respondent. The petitioner No.1 is proved to be second wife of the respondent being not legally wedded wife. Exs.P.1 and 2 are the mother’s card and ration card, which prove that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent and petitioner No.3 is the son of the respondent. Ex.P.4 is the Aadhar card and Ex.P.5 is the progress card of the petitioner No.2 – daughter. Therefore, upon considering all the evidence on record, it proves that the petitioner No.1 is the second wife of the respondent and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children of the respondent. When it is proved that the respondent by suppressing the first marriage has solemnized the second marriage with the petitioner No.1, then the petitioner No.1 is entitled for maintenance from the respondent as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled for maintenance from the respondent.
6. It is submitted that the respondent is doing sand transportation business but there is no evidence produced in this regard. The respondent being husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is liable to pay maintenance to the wife and children. Therefore, c
The main legal point established is that strict proof of marriage is not required under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. when the petitioner alleges that the respondent has suppressed a prior marriage and sole....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a woman in the position of the petitioner, as the second wife, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. even if the husband sup....
Point of law: in the absence of material to show that the respondent's alieged first marriage with Smt. Prameela said to have taken place in 1974 was to the knowledge of the petitioner in the Family ....
A second marriage is void if the first marriage is still valid, and only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Point of law: Finding recorded by the family Court that wife is staying separately from the husband without any sufficient cause is erroneous.
A second marriage is void if the first is not dissolved; thus, a second wife cannot claim maintenance unless legally recognized under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
A wife who has re-married is statutorily disqualified from claiming maintenance. When an allegation of re-marriage is supported by evidence and remains unrebutted by the respondent, the court is just....
A husband who enters into a marriage with a woman with full knowledge of his earlier marriage cannot later raise the validity of the marriage to deny the claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
