Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 84 (KAR)

Shashikala, W/o Muniraja v. Muniraja, S/o Marappa

2024-01-30

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

body2024
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.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. 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, considering the cost of living and the welfare of the children – petitioner Nos.2 and 3, it is just and proper to direct the respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 – wife till her lifetime and Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 until they attain the age of majority in respect of son and till the marriage of the daughter. Hence the following:- ORDER i. The petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The order passed in Crl.Mis.No.42/2017 dated 25.09.2018 by the Principal Family Court at Kolar is hereby set aside and the petitioner No.1 – wife is entitled to maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month till her lifetime and Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 till they attain the age of majority in respect of son and till the marriage of the daughter from the date of petition, in addition to what has been granted by the Family Court respectively from the date of petition. iii. No order as to costs. iv. The respondent shall pay maintenance amount without fail as per order.