Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 714 (KAR)

A. Saikumar v. R. G. Shashikala

2012-08-25

N.K.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2012
Judgment 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. 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 Marriage Officer/Sub-Registrar. Since he is an outsider to Karnataka, Shashikala took the responsibility of arranging the same. She made necessary enquiries and stated to him that since she is permanent resident of Ramagondanahalli village she could get the marriage registered in the office of the Marriage Officer/Sub-Registrar, Davanagere. In preparation to that she stated that they should get photographs taken. Hence, in the month of August 2006 they went to a Studio and got the photos taken standing and sitting next to each other. In preparation to that she stated that they should get photographs taken. Hence, in the month of August 2006 they went to a Studio and got the photos taken standing and sitting next to each other. Thereafter, on 16.9.2006 he went along with Shashikala to Davanagere to submit the application prepared by her for registration of marriage. He signed all the applications that were prepared in Kannada language by Shashikala and thereafter, it was submitted in the said office. It is also stated that when the application, which was submitted at the initial stage was not accepted another set of application was got prepared on the same day along with that Shashikala affixed a dummy wedding invitation card and submitted the same. Since the entire documents were in Kannada language, Saikumar was not aware of the contents except believing that said applications were submitted to get married to Shashikala in the office of Registrar of Marriage. According to him, no marriage has taken place. Infact, first application when submitted was not readily accepted by Marriage Officer citing procedural irregularities, incomplete information and non appearance of any independent witnesses identifying Saikumar. Therefore, in reality, the marriage has never taken place and the intended marriage also did not come through. Though Shashikala is aware of all these, has deliberately initiated these proceedings to defame him and to illegally extract money from him. According to him, since there is no marriage between himself and plaintiff-Smt. Shashikala, question of restitution of conjugal rights along with her does not arise and since there is no relationship of husband and wife between them granting the relief of permanent injunction, ordering restitution of conjugal right and awarding maintenance to her does not arise. 6. With these rival contentions in the form of pleadings the matter went into trial. Based on the pleadings the following issues were framed in original suit ie., OS. No.1/2007: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is going for second marriage? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the perpetual injunction as sought for? 3. Whether the defendant proves that he has not married the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed? 5. What order? So far as MC.No.6/2007 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 are concerned, the following common issues were framed: 7. Thereafter common evidence was recorded in all the three proceedings. 3. Whether the defendant proves that he has not married the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed? 5. What order? So far as MC.No.6/2007 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 are concerned, the following common issues were framed: 7. Thereafter common evidence was recorded in all the three proceedings. On behalf of plaintiff / petitioner Smt. Shashikala examined herself as PW.1. In support of her case she examined four other witnesses, namely, Smt. Devika w/o B.V. Prakash, resident of Ramagondanahalli and also her cousin's wife as PW.2. She examined her another cousin Sri. Manjunath Garehalli resident of Ramagondanahally as PW.3. Sri. Kotrappa K.G., resident of Ramagondanahally known to the family of Shashikala was examined as PW.4 and Sri. Rudranna, another resident of Ramagondanahally as PW.5. All these witnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 5 are said to be witnesses to her marriage with Saikumar in Ramagondanahally said to have taken place on 1.1.2004. In support of her case, she produced 11 documents and got them marked as Exs.P1 to P11. 8. Ex.P1 is wedding invitation in Kannada. Ex.P2 is Form No.1, memorandum of marriage declaring marriage of Shashikala and Saikumar as having taken place on 1.1.2004 at Ramagondanahally. It was prepared to be submitted to the Office of Registrar of Marriages for the purpose of registration of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act. Ex.P3 is notice of intended marriage addressed to the Marriage Officer of Davanagere Taluk. Both Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were signed by the applicants therein. Ex.P4 is identity card of Saikumar issued by Election Commission of India. Ex.P5 is Ration Card issued to Sri R.G. Shivana Gowda, father of Shashikala on 29.8.2006 by Village Accountant, Ramagondanahalli, Davanagere Taluk with Shashikala's name at Sl.No.4. Exs.P6 and P7 are photographs with negatives. Ex.P8 is legal notice issued by plaintiff through her counsel addressed to defendant-Sri. Sai Kumar. Ex.P9 is postal acknowledgement. Ex.P10 is returned cover of legal notice and Ex.P11 is certificate said to have issued by Dr. M. Padmavathi on 30.4.2007. 9. In the aforesaid proceedings on behalf of defendant Sri. Sai Kumar adduced evidence as DW.2. In support of his case he examined his father A. Srinivasulu as DW.1 and another independent witness Sri. Parashurama Shastry as DW.3 to demonstrate that marriage could not have taken place on the date when it is said to have taken place. 9. In the aforesaid proceedings on behalf of defendant Sri. Sai Kumar adduced evidence as DW.2. In support of his case he examined his father A. Srinivasulu as DW.1 and another independent witness Sri. Parashurama Shastry as DW.3 to demonstrate that marriage could not have taken place on the date when it is said to have taken place. In support of his case, in all he produced 31 documents and got them marked as Exs.D1 to D31. Ex.D1 is SSLC Marks Card as proof of his age. Exs.D2 to D6 are handbills of Sathya Sai annual function held in his native village between 31.12.2003 and 1.1.2004. Exs.D7 to D9 are newspapers carrying the news item of alleged injustice caused by him to Shashikala for the sake of additional dowry. Exs.D10 to D12 are translated copies of Exs.D7 to D9. Ex.D13 is the receipt dated 18.1.2007 issued by Marriage Officer, Davanagere in response to letter dated 17.1.2007 submitted by father of defendant seeking copy of alleged marriage certificate or endorsement regarding Special Marriage Notice No. 111/2006 dated 16.9.2006. 10. Ex.D14 is the endorsement issued from the office of Marriage Officer/Sub-Registrar, Davanagere, confirming that the marriage of plaintiff-Smt. Shashikala and defendant-Sri. Sai Kumar has not taken place under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 vide notice No.111/2006 for the reason that they did not appear within 90 days from 16.9.2006 to 16.1.2007 to secure registration of their marriage under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for which an application was submitted by them. Ex.D15 is translated copy of Ex.P14. Ex.D16 is the letter seeking registration of Sri. Shiradi Sai Samaj Society in Cuddapah. Ex.D17 is the attendance register of teaching staff of SBVD Sabha Junior College, Pullampet, wherein the name of defendant's father Sri. A. Srinivasulu is at Sl.No.3 showing that he has attended school on 29th, 30th and 31st of December 2003. Ex.D18 is also the attendance register of the same school for the month of January showing that 1st of January being holiday and 2nd and 3rd Sri. A. Srinivasulu attended the school. 11. Exs.D19 memorandum of association of Sri Shiradi Sai Samaj Society in Cuddapah, Ex.D20 to 29 are the negatives and photographs of its function on 31.12.2003 and 1.1.2004 showing the presence of defendant and his father in the said function. A. Srinivasulu attended the school. 11. Exs.D19 memorandum of association of Sri Shiradi Sai Samaj Society in Cuddapah, Ex.D20 to 29 are the negatives and photographs of its function on 31.12.2003 and 1.1.2004 showing the presence of defendant and his father in the said function. Exs.D30 and 31 are the Panchangas or Religious Calender of Hindus, which are basically produced to demonstrate that marriage could not have taken place on 1.1.2004 as contended by plaintiff and evidence with reference to that is lead through DW.3. 12. The trial Court on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record as above proceeded to answer issues 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1 and decreed the OS. No.1/2007 as prayed for. So far as MC.No.6/2007 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 are concerned, issues 1 to 4 are answered in the affirmative and on issue No.4 an order for payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/-was awarded from the date of Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 until further orders. Accordingly, both the petitions in MC.No.6/2007 for restitution of conjugal rights and Criminal Miscellaneous 22/2007 were allowed. Sri. A. Saikumar, defendant in original suit and respondent in M.C and Criminal Miscellaneous proceedings being aggrieved by the common judgment passed in the aforesaid three proceedings has come up in these two appeals challenging the finding in OS. No.1/2007 and as well as MC. No.6/2007. 13. The grounds urged in both the appeals i.e., MFA.No.719/2010 arising out of finding in MC.No.6/2007 and MFA.No.318/2011 arising out of finding in OS. No.1/2007 are one and the same for the reason that judgment rendered in both the cases in trial Court is also one and the same. The grounds are as under: 14. That trial Court failed to appreciate and evaluate the correctness or otherwise of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is self-contradictory. The difference between age of Shashikala and Saikumar, where she is elder to him by 6 years is not considered while accepting that marriage between parties is with the concurrence of elders of both families. That trial Court failed to appreciate and evaluate the correctness or otherwise of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is self-contradictory. The difference between age of Shashikala and Saikumar, where she is elder to him by 6 years is not considered while accepting that marriage between parties is with the concurrence of elders of both families. The presumption of trial Court that there was approval of both families for the alliance is unacceptable in view of the fact that boy and girl coming from totally different culture, different social background, different geographical region belonging to different communities and speaking different languages coming together in marriage, and particularly, when there is vast difference between educational qualification, social status and also the custom prevailing between the two families is not looked in to. 15. Further, when documents which are produced before trial Court are proved to be totally erroneous, fictitious, concocted and forged for the sake of case is being properly demonstrated, is not looked into and to neutralise the same trial Court relied on the Vachanas of Basavanna which is neither believed nor followed by the family of Bridegroom. Due weightage is not given to Panchanga by the trial Court in accepting the probability of marriage having been performed as contended by plaintiff. Further, in the face of documents issued by statutory authorities confirming that marriage between parties has not taken place is completely ignored. The declaration by authorities that parties to this proceedings are unmarried is conveniently sidelined by court below. 16. The fact that notice of intended marriage vide Ex.P3 is not acted upon is totally lost sight of by court below. It is also contended that when there is notice of intended marriage under Section 5 of Special Marriage Act, question of presenting memorandum of marriage in form No.1 under Hindu Marriage Act for registration of alleged marriage does not stand to reason, as they are totally different and contrary to each other. So also the contradiction regarding date, time and also name of Hindu Samvatsara or Hindu calendar being false with reference to documents available on record, court below has conveniently ignored the same. So also the contradiction regarding date, time and also name of Hindu Samvatsara or Hindu calendar being false with reference to documents available on record, court below has conveniently ignored the same. Further, even according to marriage as alleged by plaintiff, there is no evidence to show Saptha Padi and other rituals being performed as required under Hindu Marriage Act not being substantiated, consummation not being proved and also registration of said alleged marriage not being established. 17. Further as against specific endorsement by registering authority declaring that marriage is not solemnised, trial Court conveniently ignored all these and come to the wrong conclusion regarding completion of marriage. In addition to that there is also erroneous finding so far as alleged cohabitation between parties and after consummation of marriage plaintiff conceiving and undergoing medical termination of pregnancy for more than ten times within a span of 1 ½years is highly improbable and medically a miraculous proposition, is blindly accepted by trial Court without application of mind. The entire pleadings and evidence available on record being based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion ought to have been rejected at the threshold by court below, which it has failed to. 18. On going through the grounds of appeals in the light of finding of court below in the common judgment impugned, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether there is proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record? 2) Whether court below has rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiff has established solemnisation of marriage between herself and defendant? Heard the Counsel for appellant A. Saikumar in both cases and also respondent R.G. Shashikala. On reappreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record in the light of finding of court below, this Court answers the aforesaid points for consideration in negative, against respondent-alleged wife for the following: REASONS 19. Admittedly, pleadings in original suit filed seeking permanent injunction, MC petition filed seeking restitution of conjugal rights and Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed seeking maintenance appear to be one and the same. One thing which is seen in common in all these three proceedings is that narration of facts starts from 1.1.2004 i.e, the date on which respondent-alleged wife and appellant herein are said to have entered into wed-lock. One thing which is seen in common in all these three proceedings is that narration of facts starts from 1.1.2004 i.e, the date on which respondent-alleged wife and appellant herein are said to have entered into wed-lock. The respondent does not say-how she got to know appellant, when appellant and respondent met for the first time, through whom, who are common friends / acquaintance brought about their alliance, whether it was arranged by elders or a love marriage between herself and appellant. About all these aspects, all the three proceedings initiated by respondent, is silent. 20. Admittedly, appellant and respondent are Hindus belonging to different community. They are from different social background. The respondent never went to Cuddapha District, Andra Pradesh, native place of appellant prior to 2006. Similarly, appellant never visited Davanagere District at any time prior to September 2006, which is the native place of respondent. Admittedly, social and educational background of both parties are different. 21. The pleadings and documents disclose that appellant herein is a qualified software engineer with distinction, having excellent academic record. Whereas, respondent is not even a matriculate. In the case of appellant, his entire family appears to be well educated with his father being a high school Headmaster and sister is a graduate. On the other hand, respondent is not qualified, her father is an illiterate agriculturist and so also her brother. Further, they are not from affluent circumstances or with socially recognised family background. There appears to be nothing in common between two families or between appellant and respondent. Therefore the averment that the marriage between them was arranged by the elders of both family and attended by them is highly suspicious. In this background, respondent alleged wife of appellant ought to have properly narrated when she met appellant, through whom, how marriage proposal was initiated, by whom it was initiated, how the alliance was fructified into marriage, who are the persons involved in the marriage coming through and when the marriage took place. All these details are not satisfactorily explained except stating that appellant and respondent got married on 1.1.2004 in the family house of respondent i.e., at her native village Ramagondanahally in Davanagere District, in the presence of elders and relatives of both family. 22. All these details are not satisfactorily explained except stating that appellant and respondent got married on 1.1.2004 in the family house of respondent i.e., at her native village Ramagondanahally in Davanagere District, in the presence of elders and relatives of both family. 22. Surprisingly, there is no material on record to satisfactorily establish that the marriage between appellantand respondent has taken place i.e., either in the form of photographs or any other documents except a marriage invitation card. The said marriage invitation card at Ex.P1 shows that marriage has taken place on 1.1.2004, Thursday between 10.30 a.m., and 11.40 a.m. The manner in which said invitation card is printed also appears to be suspicious for the reason that, according to Hindu Calendar that was not an auspicious day for the marriage to be performed as stated by RW.3 with reference to Exs.D30 and 31, which are the annual Hindu Panchangas. Therefore, said document Ex.P1 appears to be highly suspicious. 23. If all these things are analysed from the pleadings and evidence available on the part of appellant, according to him, he met respondent-Shashikala for the first time in December 2005 at a social gathering in Mysore. She was introduced to him by his friends Devendrappa, Ravi Kumar and Presanna. Thereafter, he did not meet her for long time i.e., till March 2006, when she came in search of him to his office in Bangalore in the month of March 2006. According to him, thereafter she continued to meet him regularly in his office, which developed into friendship. He liked the manner in which she was behaving with him and in the course of such meetings she proposed to him to marry her. As per the pleadings and evidence, appellant agreed to marry her, but in view of different community, different social background and circumstances they decided to get married through registration without the consent and concurrence of the elders of appellant. 24. It is also his case that respondent suggested that they could get married in the registered office and in that behalf, as a prerequisite they went and took photographs in a photo studio in the month of August 2006. Subsequently, on a date fixed by respondent, they went to Davanagere to get the marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages. Subsequently, on a date fixed by respondent, they went to Davanagere to get the marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages. It is stated that fixing the registration of marriage at Davanagere is at the instance of respondent, for the reason that, she hails from that place. According to him, respondent stated that the marriage could be solemnised in a place where one of the parties stayed continuously for a period of more than one year. Accordingly, they went to Davanagere. In Davanagere a memorandum of marriage, which is at Ex.P2 was prepared by respondent under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Hindu Marriage Act the said memorandum was prepared in Kannada language, wherein all the three witnesses who affixed their signatures are the close relatives of respondent, namely, her mother, K.G. Gangamma, her brother, R.G. Siddesh and sister-in-law Mamatha, wife of Siddesh. 25. In the said memorandum of marriage, date of marriage was shown as 1.1.2004, place of marriage at Ramagondanahally village in Davanagere Taluk and address of appellant as residing at No.78, II Floor, Malleshwaram 11th cross, Bangalore, which was old address of appellant. In the said memorandum, the names of father and mother of appellant and his age as 28 years was shown. In the column meant for particulars of Bride, the name of respondent and her parents, address of her native place was mentioned, whereas her age was shown as 34 years. It is also seen that respondent had got marriage invitation prepared and printed in Kannada, which is produced at Ex.P1, to which she got signature of appellant, which is at Ex.P1 (a) and as well as on memorandum of marriage, which is marked as Ex.P2(a). 26. When said memorandum was submitted before the Registrar of Marriages, he grew suspicion, inasmuch as, Bridegroom being younger to Bride by more than six years and that there being nobody from the side of Bride groom, further the bride groom not conversant in kannada language and not being aware of contents therein. 26. When said memorandum was submitted before the Registrar of Marriages, he grew suspicion, inasmuch as, Bridegroom being younger to Bride by more than six years and that there being nobody from the side of Bride groom, further the bride groom not conversant in kannada language and not being aware of contents therein. Hence, on gathering information about the qualification, employment and family background as stated in the memorandum of marriage and as well as in the invitation card submitted and after ascertaining that the appellant does not read and understand Kannada language and also not aware of the contents in the said documents called upon the appellant to get the signature of persons known to him in support of the statement made in the memorandum regarding the marriage between the parties. Since appellant being stranger to Davanagere and that being his first visit to that place, he was not able to furnish the particulars. 27. Hence, subsequently, at the instance of respondent he agreed to tender notice of intended marriage under Section 5 of the Special Marriages Act. For that purpose also respondent with the assistance of people known to her got the notice prepared in Kannada language. The particulars so far as appellant is concerned, whatever that was stated in Ex.P2 were repeated here. In addition to that appellant's address was shown as if he is residing in Malleshwaram, Bangalore, from the date of his birth, which is totally false. So far as respondent is concerned, all the particulars which were in Ex.P2 were repeated in the said notice of intended marriage except for the age, for the said notice also the witnesses are none other than the mother, brother and sister-in-law of respondent. So far as appellant is concerned, respondent arranged for another witness byname G. Prabhakar of her village and got his signature affixed and submitted the same, which is at Ex.P3. 28. Since the Marriage Officer was doubtful about the entire episode, he forwarded a copy of notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Officer of Malleshwaram, Bangalore, to ascertain whether the address of Bridegroom as stated in the application is correct or otherwise, which endorsement is annexed to Ex. P3. 28. Since the Marriage Officer was doubtful about the entire episode, he forwarded a copy of notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Officer of Malleshwaram, Bangalore, to ascertain whether the address of Bridegroom as stated in the application is correct or otherwise, which endorsement is annexed to Ex. P3. When the plaint averments so far as marriage is compared to these documents, it appears the pleadings and evidence adduced by appellant herein so far as intention of marriage is concerned, is acceptable as against the pleading of respondent herein, who is plaintiff/petitioner before the court below. 29. However, on further verification of pleadings and evidence on other aspects, it reveals further interesting things as under: As observed above, the notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriages Act submitted to the Registrar of Marriages at Davanagere was received under Notice No. Spl.M.NOT.111/2006. It is seen from the records that Registrar had instructed the appellant that he should bring witnesses from his side for completion of the registration formality under the notice to intended marriage and the same should be after 30 days from 16.9.2006 but within three months from the date of submitting the application. It is only then the appellant woke-up, approached his friends Devendrappa and Prasanna through whom he met respondent. At that time he was informed that respondent Shashikala is elder to him in age and she had tried to play same trick with other boys for getting married to her, since she has not succeeded with them she has targeted appellant and hence stated that they would not like to get involved in this. It is at this stage when appellant confronted respondent with this information she insisted that marriage should come through and that he cannot refuse to get married to her after having filed the notice of intended marriage under Special Marriages Act. It is only when he refused to proceed further in getting the marriage registered in pursuance of the notice filed before Registrar of Marriages, Davanagere, the ordeal of facing false charges and accusation commenced to the appellant. 30. It is only when he refused to proceed further in getting the marriage registered in pursuance of the notice filed before Registrar of Marriages, Davanagere, the ordeal of facing false charges and accusation commenced to the appellant. 30. From the material on record in the form of Exs.D7 to D9 which are daily newspapers of Telugu, namely Cuddapha Vartha, Andra Jyothi and E-Nadu Cuddapha it is seen that during January 2007 respondent went to Cuddapha along with photographs which she had taken along with appellant in the month of August 2006 to be utilised in submitting memorandum for registration of marriage. After reaching the native place of appellant she went door to door showing the photographs of appellant with her to the people therein, identified appellant's house, called the press and created hue and cry stating that she is the legally wedded wife of appellant. The appellant-husband has now deserted her, for the sake of dowry and also with an intention to marry some other girl. 31. On going through the press statements given by her, it is seen that she has given different statements to different papers. In Cuddapha Vartha, Telugu daily from Cuddapha district in its 14.1.2007 edition, which is produced and marked as Ex.D7, translated copy of which is at Ex.D10, she has stated that she met appellant in bus, the date on which she met him is not stated. Further it is stated that after three years of marital life with appellant he is trying to desert her. She has also stated that she got married to him in a temple in Cuddapha District. Subsequently, they went to Davanagere and got their marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages, and lived peaceful life for some time. Thereafter, there was change in his behaviour, on verification, she came to know that he is trying to go to America and desert her completely. Hence, she has come to Pullampet in search of appellant. She has also stated that she was doing saree business and was helping him to lead life when he was not having job for two years. After getting job appellant started to disown her. However, in the said statement, she has not properly explained when appellant was jobless. In the said press meet she has also stated that she was pregnant twice and on both occasions she underwent abortion. 32. After getting job appellant started to disown her. However, in the said statement, she has not properly explained when appellant was jobless. In the said press meet she has also stated that she was pregnant twice and on both occasions she underwent abortion. 32. In her statement to E-Nadu, which is published on 14.1.2007, produced at Ex.P8 with translated copy at Ex.P11, it is stated appellant-Sai Kumar came to Karnataka in 2003 in search of job. At that time, he got acquainted with her in Mysore, where she was doing saree business. Subsequently, they got married. That she was taking care of him when he had no employment. They also got their marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages at Davanagere. Subsequently, when he got job thereafter he disowned her. 33. Coming to her statement in Andra Jyothi, Cuddapha edition dated 14.1.2007 which is at Ex.D9, translated copy at Ex.D12, the same story is printed in a different manner, wherein it is stated that she married appellant in 2004 and lived together for one year. Later appellant got a job in MNC company and then he thought of marrying another software engineer and thereafter, he started to neglect her and did not take care of her properly. He did not allow her to become pregnant and he forced her to take pills to avoid pregnancy. It is only when she insisted that she should be taken to his father's house, he ran away from the house and was not seen for 40 days. Hence, she came in search of him to Cuddapha and with the help of Police she could trace him. 34. These three press statements which are given by respondent to different newspapers in Cuddapha District, Andra Pradesh completely shatters her case regarding her marriage with appellant and living with him. It is clearly seen the inconsistencies in three statements do not support her case as stated in the three proceedings initiated by respondent at Davanagere. Surprisingly, as on the date when she gave press statement dated 14.1.2007 she had already initiated original suit for permanent injunction restraining appellant, defendant in the suit from entering into wedlock with third person. It is also seen that MC proceedings was filed on 11.1.2007. Surprisingly, in all the press statements she has not referred to filing of either original suit or MC proceedings against appellant herein. It is also seen that MC proceedings was filed on 11.1.2007. Surprisingly, in all the press statements she has not referred to filing of either original suit or MC proceedings against appellant herein. Therefore, the conduct of respondent appears to be highly suspicious right from the beginning, inasmuch as, her pleadings being incomplete in all the three proceedings, the pleadings being contrary to press statements reported in three leading newspapers of Cuddapha. Again the statements made before the reporters in each of the newspapers being different and contrary to each other throw a cloud of doubt against the conduct of respondent. 35. It is seen, thereafter, respondent entered appearance in said proceedings and filed his statement of objections and written statement. Subsequently, the matter went in to trial, wherein respondent who is plaintiff/ petitioner in all the three proceedings adduced evidence as PW.1. In support of her case she examined four other witnesses. Incidentally, none of them are witnesses to either Ex.P2, memorandum of marriage they intended to file before the Registrar of Marriages or Ex.P3, notice of intended marriage. Surprisingly, she did not adduce evidence either through her parents, brother or sister-in-law who stood by her in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. 36. Now coming to witnesses before court below, PW.1 Shashikala, according to her, herself and appellant filed a notice into the office of Registrar of Marriages showing their intention to get married under the Special Marriages Act on 16.9.2006. Surprisingly, in the pleadings in the original suit she has taken a specific plea that on 16.9.2006 she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on demand of dowry. Assuming for a moment, if she is thrown out of matrimonial house on 16.9.2006 which is at Bangalore, why and how both respondent and appellant travelled to Davanagere to file their application for intended marriage, is not satisfactorily explained. She further states her marriage with Sai Kumar was finalised through a marriage broker by name Raju. The said evidence is contrary to the statement, which she has made before the press vide Exs.D7 to D9. Surprisingly, said Raju is not examined in the proceedings before the court below. She states that engagement had taken place prior to marriage, but she does not remember the date of engagement. She also states that she is not aware of the qualification of her husband. 37. Surprisingly, said Raju is not examined in the proceedings before the court below. She states that engagement had taken place prior to marriage, but she does not remember the date of engagement. She also states that she is not aware of the qualification of her husband. 37. In her evidence she has stated that marriage was performed through a priest by name Ishwar, who is not examined to prove the performance of marriage. She also states that marriage was attended by 400 members from boy's side and they came to marriage in a bus and a car accompanied by boy's father and uncle. When more than 400 persons attended marriage from boy's side, not even a single photograph is taken and the reason given to that is that they could not afford to engage the services of a photographer. 38. Further, she state that she lived with appellant as his wife from 1.1.2004 to 16.9.2006. Between said period she conceived for 10 times and on all ten times she was forced to undergo abortion and in support of that she produced a certificate issued by one Dr. Padmavathi, which is at Ex.P11. The said Dr. Padmavathi is not examined. It is seen that said certificate is issued on 30.4.2007 i.e., four months after the three proceedings were initiated. The said certificate is highly suspicious as the seal of Doctor is put in one end and her signature is put on another end of the certificate. 39. It is seen that in her evidence she does not clearly say where the matrimonial house was set up at Bangalore and in which place at Bangalore she lived along with appellant. Though she states that she was in Bangalore with appellant from 1.1.2004 to 16.9.2006 she does not clearly state where the matrimonial house was at any point of time. So far as address of appellant is concerned, she states that his house was in Malleshwaram at Bangalore. Further, she has not adduced evidence through her parents and brother to demonstrate the marriage said to have performed in her father's house. She has also not examined any witnesses who were her neighbours at Bangalore to demonstrate that she was residing along with appellant for two years nine months at Bangalore. Further, she has not adduced evidence through her parents and brother to demonstrate the marriage said to have performed in her father's house. She has also not examined any witnesses who were her neighbours at Bangalore to demonstrate that she was residing along with appellant for two years nine months at Bangalore. Not even a single documentary evidence either postal communication received from her parents to her matrimonial address at Bangalore, ration card, bank account statement, gas connection in the name of appellant or any other document to show that matrimonial house was set up at Bangalore and she was residing there-in along with appellant. She has not led evidence in that behalf either by herself or through persons having known to her residing in the said address. Further it is seen that while filing suit she has stated that she came to know through one Raghu and Shankar regarding the appellant trying to get married for the second time. However, she has not adduced any evidence through them in the court below to substantiate the same. She has also not given particulars of said persons, how and when she came to know about the said information through them. 40. The most intriguing and confusing behaviour of respondent is when she claims that she was married to appellant on 1.1.2004 in accordance with the custom prevailing in their community and said marriage alleged to have taken place in the presence of elders of both families, why did she file an application on 16.9.2006 regarding her intention to get married to appellant under Special Marriages Act, is not properly explained either in the pleadings or evidence. Also, the persons who were along with her at the time of filing of aforesaid three proceedings are not named and she has not chosen to examine the said persons who were along with her at the time of filing of memorandum of marriage so also filing of notice of intended marriage on 16.9.2006. 41. Yet another intriguing thing on record is that respondent in her petition and as well as in notice dated 9.1.2007, which is produced at Ex.P8 stated that she was thrown out of house on 16.9.2006. The contents of Ex.P8-notice are totally contrary to documents at Exs.P2 and P3 relied upon by respondent. 41. Yet another intriguing thing on record is that respondent in her petition and as well as in notice dated 9.1.2007, which is produced at Ex.P8 stated that she was thrown out of house on 16.9.2006. The contents of Ex.P8-notice are totally contrary to documents at Exs.P2 and P3 relied upon by respondent. When admittedly, on 16.9.2006 the whole day appellant and respondent along with respondent's mother, brother and sister-in-law were staying in Davanagere, how respondent could be thrown out of her matrimonial house in Bangalore on the very same day, is not properly explained by respondent. The contradictions and lacunas in the pleadings and evidence are largely seen in many areas. In Ex.P2, Memorandum of marriage, she states that her age is 34 years as against the age of appellant, which is at 28 years. However, when it comes to filing of original suit and as well as the other proceedings initiated by her, she conveniently increases the age of appellant from 28 to 36 and maintains her age as 34 itself, as stated in Ex.P2. However, when it comes to Ex.P3, which was prepared after the Registrar of Marriages expressed his doubt regarding genuineness of the contents of Ex.P2, she conveniently does not put her age. This clearly shows the conduct of party that she is in the habit of telling lies, creating and fabricating documents. 42. This observation of this Court is substantiated by photographs relied upon by respondent. In the entire proceedings except two photographs produced and relied upon i.e., one in which both appellant and respondent are standing next to each other and in another one, boy is sitting and the girl is standing, which according to appellant was taken in the month of August 2006 for the purpose of getting their marriage registered which she has utilised in all the places including in the press meet at Cuddapah, where she has tried to discredit the reputation of appellant and his family members to achieve her sinister and deceitful method of coercing him to accept her as his wife. Assuming that they are married since 1.1.2004, how is that there are no other photographs of appellant and respondent is not properly explained. 43. Similarly, the evidence of PW.2 is also totally contrary to the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 claims herself to be a relative of PW.1 through her husband. Assuming that they are married since 1.1.2004, how is that there are no other photographs of appellant and respondent is not properly explained. 43. Similarly, the evidence of PW.2 is also totally contrary to the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 claims herself to be a relative of PW.1 through her husband. According to her, the marriage was performed in Ramagondanahally through one priest by name Marulaiah, as against the evidence of PW.1 that marriage was conducted through the priest Ishwar. But other things she repeats exactly whatever respondent has stated in her evidence. 44. PW.3 -Manjunath states that he is respondent's uncle's son and cousin. He states he does not know about the respondent's educational qualification and any of the things pertaining to her except that he knows she got married to appellant in their native village on 1.1.2004. Similar is the evidence of K.G. Kotrappa. Strangely, he does not know anything about the family members of respondent-Shashikala. He knows her hardly for four to five years and he guesses her age as somewhere around 25 to 30 years. PW.5-Rudranna who is resident of Chitradurga and his evidence is more damaging than that of other witnesses. According to him, he has seen appellant-Sai Kumar and respondent-Shashikala several times in Ramagondanahally village. When admittedly, he is resident of Chitradurga, why he went to Ramagondanahally on several occasions, is not properly explained. 45. On reappreciation of the evidence of above witnesses it is seen that they are all tutored witnesses. They are in no way connected to the facts of the case and all of them appear to be in tune with respondent to say that they witnessed marriage. Whereas relevant persons who could have given evidence are parents of respondent-Shashikala, her brother and sister-in-law, who have conveniently stayed away from proceedings. Further, it is seen that even in documents, which are produced by respondent, there are lots of mistakes. The first of that is Ex.P1, wedding invitation. For the English calendar date 1.1.2004 equivalent Hindu year is Swabhanu Samvatsara, whereas in the invitation for 1.1.2004 it is stated as Vyayanama Samvatsara, which comes during the period between 2006-2007. This clearly indicates that wedding invitation, Ex.P1 is printed in 2006 for the purpose of memorandum of marriage and probably that is how Vyayanama Samvatsara is written in the invitation card, which was the prevailing Samvatsara as on 16.9.2006. This clearly indicates that wedding invitation, Ex.P1 is printed in 2006 for the purpose of memorandum of marriage and probably that is how Vyayanama Samvatsara is written in the invitation card, which was the prevailing Samvatsara as on 16.9.2006. If Ex.P1 were to be genuine, no priest would make the elementary mistake in writing the name of year itself wrongly. Therefore, Ex.P2 is fake a document. 46. Similarly, there are several lacunas in the documents which are relied upon by respondent in the court below. So far as Ex.P2 is concerned, address of boy is given falsely and said memorandum is not accepted by Registrar of Marriages and is rejected. Similarly, Ex.P3 is a notice of intended marriage which has not fructified into a marriage as confirmed by Exs.D13, which is letter dated 17.1.2007 addressed to Registrar of Marriages by the father of appellant seeking marriage certificate of parties under Section 5 of the Special Marriages Act if completed. For which endorsement is issued vide Exs.D14 and D15, wherein Registrar of Marriages confirmed that marriage between parties is not registered and there is no marriage between appellant and respondent. When there is clear finding given by statutory authority regarding intended marriage as requested by parties under Section 5 of Special Marriages Act is not completed, the finding of court below in accepting Ex.P3 and holding that marriage is complete, does not stand to reason. 47. Similarly, documents, which are produced by respondent at Exs.P4 and P5 clearly show the correct age of both appellant and respondent. The document at Ex.P5 further give credence to the belief that there was no marriage between appellant and respondent. Ex.P5 is ration card, which is issued to the father of respondent-Shashikala on 29.8.2006. As on 29.8.2006 it is stated that respondent is residing in Ramagondanahally and she is not shown as a married woman, according to her by then she was already married to appellant i.e., 2 years 9 months before that date and she was in matrimonial house till 16.9.2006. Her address is shown as that of Davanagere. Again coming to notice at Ex.P8, which is yet another document, which is also with full of lacunas. The said notice is issued on 9.1.2007, wherein appellant is called upon to take back his wife within one week. Whereas, suit is filed on the very next day i.e., on 10.1.2007. Her address is shown as that of Davanagere. Again coming to notice at Ex.P8, which is yet another document, which is also with full of lacunas. The said notice is issued on 9.1.2007, wherein appellant is called upon to take back his wife within one week. Whereas, suit is filed on the very next day i.e., on 10.1.2007. The said notice is sent to Malleshwaram address which is not the address of appellant as could be seen from Ex.P9, postal acknowledgement which has come back on 1.2.2007. 48. As against this if evidence which is led on behalf of appellant is appreciated, it is seen that on behalf of appellant his father A. Srinivasulu is examined as DW.1. Appellant Sai Kumar has examined himself as DW.2 and an astrologer, Parasurama Shastry is examined as DW.3 to demonstrate the lacunas in marriage date as stated by respondent regarding Samvatsara. The document at Exs.D2 to D6 demonstrate that as on 1.1.2004 there was function which was conducted in the native place of appellant at Cuddapha in which appellant and his father participated. If they were to be participating in said function as could be seen from photographs at Exs.D20 to D29, the presence of very same persons at Ramagondanahally for the purpose of marriage between appellant and respondent, is highly improbable. It is further strengthened by attendance register vide Exs.D17 and 18, which shows that DW.1-father of appellant attended school on 31st December 2003 and 2nd January 2004 in Cuddapha District. Admittedly, distance between Pullampet, native of appellant and Ramagondanahally at Davanagere District, native of respondent is more than 600 kms., approximately. Even assuming that appellant and his parents were to reach Ramagondanahally to attend the marriage function on 31.12.2003 and 1.1.2004 as stated in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, appellant and his parents/father should have left their native place Pullampet atleast by 8.00 am., on 31.12.2003 so as to reach the place of wedding by the evening of 31.12.2003 as stated by the respondent herein. In that event, appellant's father could not have affixed his signature in school attendance register on 31.1.2003 and thereby he could not be present in the school on that day. This clearly discounts the presence of appellant and his father on the aforesaid date i.e., on the evening of 31.12.2009 and on 1.1.2004 at Ramagondanahally. 49. In that event, appellant's father could not have affixed his signature in school attendance register on 31.1.2003 and thereby he could not be present in the school on that day. This clearly discounts the presence of appellant and his father on the aforesaid date i.e., on the evening of 31.12.2009 and on 1.1.2004 at Ramagondanahally. 49. All the above documents i.e., Exs.D2 to D6, D17 and D18 and D20 to D29 clearly discount the possibility of either appellant or his father being present in Ramagondanahally, Davanagere District. Infact, Exs.D30 and D31 Panchangas with the oral evidence of DW.3 further confirm that as on 1.1.2004 it was not Vyayanama Samvatsara and is not auspicious day for any auspicious ceremony, as stated by respondent in Ex.Pl, invitation card. The aforesaid discussion confirm that Ex.P1 is fabricated document, which was fabricated for the limited purpose of getting registered certificate of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, which was contemplated by respondent by filing Ex.P2 along with Ex.P1 in the office of Registrar of marriages. Therefore, none of these documents are properly proved by respondent. Therefore, they could not be believed. 50. On going through the evidence available on record thread-bare this Court feels that alleged marriage between respondent-Shashikala and appellant-Sai Kumar is nothing but a figment of false story woven by respondent-Shashikala. Though respondent has taken all precaution to establish the alleged marriage between herself and appellant, as every criminal would fail in his attempt in one or the other way, respondent also has failed to prove the falsehood that she has propagated. There are serious contradictions by her so far as her marriage is concerned. Throughout she does not say anything about the manner in which she met appellant-Sai Kumar, how marriage was finalised and when engagement took place either in her pleadings or in her oral evidence. However, while giving press statements as could be seen from Exs.D7 to D9 she has cooked up altogether a different story to each of the newspaper, wherein she states that she met appellant in the year 2003 in a bus in one place, through common friends in a social gathering in another place and in other place states that marriage proposal was brought by one Raju and through him marriage was finalised. But none of these aspects are substantiated by examining either her parents and brother, alleged broker Raju or alleged friends in support of her case, inasmuch as, her claim that marriage is arranged marriage. 51. It is further seen that in one of the press statements she states that she met Sai Kumar only after he came to Bangalore. After marriage initially she was maintaining the family from out of her income from saree business and after respondent got the job he became greedy and he wanted to ditch her and to run to America. In another newspaper she states that appellant wanted to get married to a software girl in his office, accordingly he ditched her. In other newspaper she states that appellant was demanding dowry, since she refused, she was thrown out of matrimonial house. There is total inconsistency in her pleadings and evidence everywhere. 52. Regarding pregnancy it is seen that in one of the press statements she states that her husband was not allowing her to become pregnant and used to insist that she should take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. In other newspaper item she states that she was pregnant twice and on both occasions pregnancy was removed. Whereas in the court below she produced Ex.P11 said to have issued by one Dr. Padmavathi on 30.4.2007 to the effect that she underwent abortions on ten occasions, which is humanly impossible. In a span of 2 year and 9 months no woman can conceive ten times and get aborted on 10 occasion. Infact, in the photograph respondent appear to be healthy person. No person can survive 10 abortions in a stretch of two years 9 months, it can only be a medical miracle. The very fact that said Doctor under Ex.P11 is not examined to demonstrate which of the dates she was conceived, the dates on which 10 abortions are conducted is not properly explained through said doctor. This clearly shows that said document is fake document. 53. With all the aforesaid false and concocted documents respondent has successfully ruined the life of appellant for a period of five longs years for the fault that he believed this lady to be a nice lady, agreed to marry her as suggested by her and proceeded to get married to her. 53. With all the aforesaid false and concocted documents respondent has successfully ruined the life of appellant for a period of five longs years for the fault that he believed this lady to be a nice lady, agreed to marry her as suggested by her and proceeded to get married to her. It is seen that subsequently he was given a clear picture about the nature of this lady which made him to go-back on his willingness to marry her itself should not have led the respondent to harass him to this extent by filing the aforesaid three false proceedings. Strangely, the court below has not looked into any of the aforesaid contradictions in the statements and documents referred to above and has blindly proceeded to accept the falsified version of respondent and fake and forged documents on which her case was built-up. It is rather surprising. In any event, impugned common judgment passed in OS. No.1/2007 and MC.No.6/2007 does not stand to reason, inasmuch as same is rendered without appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record which clearly disclose the falacity in the claim made by respondent. 54. While resting this case, we observe that there is serious error on the part of Court below in not appreciating properly the material evidence available on record. When there are so many lacunas in the case of plaintiiff/petitioner in the court below, it is surprising how court below ignored all these aspects. It is seen, in many cases, whenever petitions are filed by woman some courts are in the habit of taking the role of saviours of women and try to interpret the provisions of law favourably to them, ignore the material on record. The judges are not supposed to impose their personal prejudices, views and opinions into any of the matters. They cannot identify themselves either with the husband or wife in these cases. They are required to dispassionately assess the material on record and come to a just and fair conclusion. While doing so, they should ensure the provisions of law regarding appreciation of evidence and pleadings are properly applied to prevent miscarriage of justice. They cannot identify themselves either with the husband or wife in these cases. They are required to dispassionately assess the material on record and come to a just and fair conclusion. While doing so, they should ensure the provisions of law regarding appreciation of evidence and pleadings are properly applied to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the court below appears to have got carried away by the fact that the suit and petitions are filed by a woman, disowned by her husband, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice in allowing the false and frivolous suit and petitions filed by her. 55. In the result, the appeals filed appellant-Sai Kumar are allowed. Consequently, common judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 passed in OS.No.1/2007 and MC.No.6/2007 on the file of Family Court, Davanagere, is set aside. Consequently, the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 is also set aside. It is made clear that respondent is not entitled to any amount by way of maintenance from appellant and whatever money that respondent has already taken through court below and or in this court pursuant to decree passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 is required to be repaid by her to appellant. In addition to that for the inconvenience and embarrassment caused to appellant and his family members exemplary costs is required to be imposed on respondent. Accordingly, appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/-which respondent-Shashikala is required to pay within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In the event of respondent's failure to pay costs and also fail to repay the amounts which she has received pursuant to order in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/2007 would entitle the appellant to levy execution and recover the same from her as if the decree passed in OS. No.1/2007 pursuant to this judgment and decree for recovery of said amount.