Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 134 (KAR)

DEVARADDI GURAPPA BIRADAR v. SAROJINI

2017-01-23

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : B.A. Patil, J. Though the respondent is served, she has remained unrepresented. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-husband being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, where under the order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the learned JMFC., Muddebihal in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3/2011 was confirmed by dismissing the revision petition. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent herein filed a petition before the Court below under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from her husband-petitioner herein. It is alleged that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. The marriage took place about 18 years back at Hosahalli Village and after marriage, she led a happy marital life with her husband but she did not beget any child. At the time of her marriage, her parents had given a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and two tholas, of gold as well as utensils in the form of dowry. 2 to 3 years prior to filing of the petition, the petitioner herein at the instance of his brother, pressurized her to bring a sum Rs. 50,000/- and two tholas of gold as additional dowry. It is also alleged that her husband was addicted to bad habits and at the instance of his brother he used to torture her both physically and mentally and the same was informed to her parents. It is further alleged that the parents of the wife-respondent herein along with the elders in the village advised him suitably, but it became in vain. About one year back, petitioner herein ousted her from the matrimonial house and that she has no sources of income and she was constrained to live with her parents. It is further contended that neither the petitioner herein has made any arrangements for her lively hood nor took her back. It is also contended that she is poor and incapacitated to earn her livelihood. As the petitioner herein is having 45 acres of irrigated land and earning more than Rs. 3,00,000/- and out of the said land, he is having half share in it, he is capable of paying of Rs. 4,000/- per month to her as maintenance. 5. It is also contended that she is poor and incapacitated to earn her livelihood. As the petitioner herein is having 45 acres of irrigated land and earning more than Rs. 3,00,000/- and out of the said land, he is having half share in it, he is capable of paying of Rs. 4,000/- per month to her as maintenance. 5. Petitioner herein, i.e., respondent before the Court below, after service of notice has appeared through his counsel and filed counter denying the averments made in the petition contending that the respondent herein is not his wife. About 18 years back the said marriage has not taken place. On 22.4.1982 his brother Appanagouda's marriage was solemnized and a son was born to Appannagouda on 19.7.1984 out of the said wed-lock. As per school records, the date of birth of the respondent herein is 1.6.1974. Even assuming that the alleged marriage was solemnized in the year 1982, then the petitioner herein was 13 years' old and respondent herein was 8 years' old. He has no marital relationship between the respondent herein and as such question of giving dowry in the form of cash and gold does not arise. It is further contended by the petitioner herein that the respondent herein had earlier filed a petty case and the same was dismissed on 15.5.2010 for non-prosecution. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent herein before the Court below. 6. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court partly allowed the petition filed by the wife granting a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/ - to her. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband-petitioner herein filed Cr.R.P. No. 147/ 2014. The revisional Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the revision petition by passing the impugned order. Assailing the said order, the present petition is filed by the husband-petitioner herein. 7. The main grounds urged by the petitioner herein are that the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner herein in the absence of any proof of the marriage between them. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no legal documents have been produced by the respondent-wife to show that she has got married with the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no legal documents have been produced by the respondent-wife to show that she has got married with the petitioner. It is also contended that even assuming that the marriage has taken place on 22.4.1982, at that time, the petitioner was aged about 13 years and respondent was aged about 8 years. In that light, the marriage is not at all valid. It is also contended by bringing to the notice of this Court that considering the age of the petitioner's brother and his son, the question of marriage of the petitioner with respondent does not arise at all. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition by setting aside the orders of both the Courts below. 8. In order to prove the case of the respondent herein, she herself got examined before the Court below as PW. 1 and also examined PWs.2 to 4 on her side. Whereas the petitioner himself got examined as RW. 1 and other two witnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R4. During the course of evidence, the wife-respondent herein has reiterated the contents of the petition. She has deposed that she is legally wedded of the petitioner herein and the marriage was performed 18 years back and she has led marital life with her husband. Thereafter at the instance of his brother, the petitioner herein has ill-treated her both physically and mentally pressurizing her to bring additional dowry. Ultimately, she was ousted by the petitioner herein and now she is living with her parents and she is not having sufficient means to maintain herself as the petitioner-husband neglected to maintain her. She has produced the RTC extracts pertaining to the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 15/1, 41/1, 12/1, and 23 situated at Hosahalli which are standing in the name of the petitioner and his brother. 9. In order to prove the marital relationship, a xerox copy of the voters' list with photos and names and Election Identity Card of the respondent herein was confronted to RW2 and the said witness has admitted that photo at Sl. No. 370 in the Voters' List belongs to the respondent herein. 9. In order to prove the marital relationship, a xerox copy of the voters' list with photos and names and Election Identity Card of the respondent herein was confronted to RW2 and the said witness has admitted that photo at Sl. No. 370 in the Voters' List belongs to the respondent herein. Even RW.2 has also identified the Election Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, wherein the name of the respondent herein has appeared and the name of petitioner herein has been shown as her husband. On going through the said records, an inference can be drawn that the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner herein. The said Election Identity Card was issued in the year 2009, i.e., at undisputed period. At the time of issuance of the said document, the present dispute was not there between the parties. 10. It is well established principles of law that if prima facie the respondent-wife proves that she is the wife of the petitioner-husband, the strict proof of the said material is not required as that of in Civil Courts. In that light, the Courts below has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and by taking into consideration the landed property and his share and as the respondent is unable to maintain herself, has granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-. It is not the case of the petitioner that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondent herein is exorbitant or high. The only contention taken by him is that she is not his wife. Prima facie when there is a material to show that she is the wife of the petitioner, then under such circumstances, the contention in this behalf is not sustainable and in law he is bound to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the Court below. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the orders of the Courts below, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below have not committed any error while passing the impugned orders and they do not call for any interference by this Court. As such, they are liable to be confirmed and accordingly they I are confirmed. 12. Hence, petition is dismissed with costs.