Dismissed

Smt. Yashoda v. Smt. M Chaitra

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023MFA/7370/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against a Family Court decree that rejected a suit for declaration of a valid marriage. The court held the appellant failed to prove the marriage solemnization with the deceased husband due to lack of independent evidence and inferences.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt. Yashoda Vs Smt. M Chaitra — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7370 OF 2013 (FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. YASHODA W/O LATE MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O BARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE DIST.-500085.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. M.CHAITRA D/O LATE T.CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.450, 16TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560050.

¶13

SRI V.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. NO.34, NARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA, KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-560079.

¶14

SMT. M.SUNANDAMMA W/O V.KRISHNAPPA

¶15

¶16

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶17

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. NO.34, NARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA, KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-560079.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 & R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2013, PASSED IN OS NO.166/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.03.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2013, passed in O.S.No.166/2007 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that marriage of the appellant with the deceased K. Mohan Kumar, solemnized on 07.05.2000 at Dharmasthala is valid marriage and to declare the marriage between

¶24

¶25

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶26

K. Mohan Kumar and the respondent No. 1 as null and void, has been dismissed.

¶27

Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that marriage of the appellant was solemnized on 07.05.2000 with K. Mohan Kumar at Dharmasthala. It is averred that respondent No. 1 claims that she married K.Mohan Kumar on 23.08.2001 at Sri Rajarajeshwari Kalayana Mantapa, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The said K. Mohan Kumar died on 25.3.2002 by committing suicide. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 had filed suit for partition and separate possession before the City Civil Court Bangalore, claiming herself as the legal heir of late K. Mohan Kumar. When the appellant filed impleading application in the said suit, the same was rejected as the marriage between the parties was in dispute. As a result the appellant filed a separate suit seeking declaration in O.S. No. 166/2007 to declare the marriage of the appellant with K. Mohan Kumar solemnized on 7.5.2000 at Dharmasthala, as valid and to declare that the marriage between K. Mohan Kumar

¶28

¶29

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶30

and the respondent No. 1 as null and void, which has been dismissed.

¶31

The respondent No. 1 entered appearance before the Family Court and filed written statement. The respondents 2 and 3 remained absent hence they were placed exparte . The contesting respondent No. 1 has averred that her marriage was solemnized with K. Mohan Kumar on 23.08.2001 at Sri Rajrajeshwari Kalayan Mantap, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, and out of said wedlock daughter namely Swathi was born. It is further averred that appellant is stranger to K. Mohan Kumar and pleaded that K. Mohan Kumar committed suicide and she had been prosecuted for the alleged offence. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that she and her daughter are entitled to the share in the properties of late K. Mohan Kumar and denied the other averments of plaint.

¶32

The Family Court recorded the evidence. The appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The

¶33

¶34

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶35

respondent No.1 examined herself as DW.1, other witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and produced Exs.D1 to D42(a). The Family Court by judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013 dismissed the suit. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is the legally wedded wife of deceased K.Mohan Kumar and their marriage was solemnized at Dharmasthala. In support of the same the appellant has produced various documents such as, Wedding Invitation Card, Election Voter ID card, Death Certificate, two letters issued by Canara Bank, a letter issued by Bangalore District Graduates Co-operative credit Society Limited and an endorsement issued by BBMP. It is further submitted that on behalf of the appellant six witnesses have been examined to establish the factum of marriage of the appellant with late K.Mohan Kumar. He further submits that first defendant has not produced any acceptable evidence in support her defence.

¶37

¶38

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶39

It is submitted that oral testimony on behalf of the appellant and the documentary evidences clearly establishes that appellant had married K. Mohan Kumar on 07.05.2000 at Dharmasthala and that the Family Court has erred in holding that appellant failed to establish the marriage between the appellant and respondent. The Family Court has further erred in holding that marriage of respondent No.1 with Mohan Kumar was proved by respondents without any cogent and acceptable evidence. Reliance placed on Exs.D1 to D5, D8, D9 by the Family Court is erroneous, as the defendants failed to produce copy of the Negatives of the photographs.

¶40

The respondents though served have remained unrepresented.

¶41

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and perused the material on record. The appellant claims that her marriage was solemnized with K. Mohan Kumar on 07.05.2000 at Dharmasthala and in support of such contentions she has deposed as PW1 and

¶42

¶43

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶44

adduced other five witnesses by producing eight documents. On careful scrutiny of pleading and evidence on record the point which arises for our consideration is, whether the appellant proves that she is the legally wedded wife of late Mohan Kumar.

¶45

The oral testimonies, relied by appellant disclose that marriage of the appellant and K.Mohan Kumar was solemnized on 07.05.2000 at Sri. Dharmasthala Munjunatha Swamy Sannidhi. However appellant has not produced adequate documentary evidence to establish the factum of marriage at Dharmasthala. The appellant has failed to examine the person, who has printed the wedding invitation card in his press, hence no credence can be given to wedding invitation card. PW2 in his examinationin-chief states that marriage was performed between the appellant and K.Mohan Kumar on 07.05.2000 at Dharmasthala. However in his cross-examination, he admits that he is not sure whether any photographs were taken at the time of marriage. PW2 has deposed contradictory statements, hence the Family Court has

¶46

¶47

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶48

rightly disbelieved the same. Thus we do not find any error in the findings of Family Court.

¶49

The appellant in her cross-examination has stated that she saw K.Mohan Kumar for the first time on 06.05.2000 in the house of her sister Ansuya, and as per pleading the marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2000 with late K. Mohan Kumar. It is quite unnatural that the appellant has seen the Mohan Kumar for the first time just one day prior to the marriage. The Family Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the appellant. The appellant during cross examination has also admitted that she received message of suicide of K.Mohan Kumar, thereafter, she went to the deceased house and she does not know whether any post mortem was performed or not. It is quite natural that if the appellant is legally wedded wife of K.Mohan Kumar, she would not have rushed to hospital and that she would have complete knowledge of the incident. Hence, it is difficult to believe the plea of the appellant that she had married K.Mohan Kumar. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants are

¶50

¶51

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶52

interested witnesses, as they are relatives and no independent witnesses have been examined, who had attended the marriage ceremony at Dharmasthala. In the absence of any independent witnesses, who had witnessed the marriage ceremony, we are unable to accept the case of the appellant. The appellant has not examined the priest, who has performed the marriage rituals nor produced an iota of evidence to establish the factum of marriage at Dharmasthala and in the absence of such evidence we cannot come to the conclusion that appellant has proved the solemnization of marriage with K.Mohan Kumar.

¶53

The appellant has failed to prove that she had married K.Mohan Kumar on 07.05.2000 at Dharmasthala. Per contra the defendants have produced cogent and acceptable evidence to support their case.

¶54

The Family Court on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, recorded the finding that the appellant has failed to prove the marriage between the appellant

¶55

10 -

¶56

MFA No.7370 of 2013

¶57

and deceased K.Mohan Kumar solemnized on 07.05.2000 at Sri Dharmastala Munjunatha Sannidi, Dharmastala, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The said finding does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court in the present appeal.

¶58

For the reasons recorded supra, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

No order as to costs.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

NG CT: DMN

Smt. Yashoda v. Smt. M Chaitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yashoda v. Smt. M Chaitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology Vs Dr Leena S

M/S Bengaluru Shirt Company Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sri. Rama Nayaka

Miss. Megha. S. Y. Vs the State of Karnataka

Central Board Trustee, Epf Vs M/S Murnad Education Society

Sri Ajay Marar Vs Smt Bivra