Dismissed

Smt. Geetha v. G.P Sharadamma

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2023RSA/37/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal challenging declaration suits, the High Court held that the trial and first appellate courts correctly dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the respondent was not his wife, relying on registered marriage documents and witness testimony under Section 50 of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed.

Smt. Geetha Vs G.P Sharadamma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2014 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GEETHA W/O LATE B. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶9

G.S. DEEPAK PATIL S/O LATE B. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

G.S. JAGADEESH PATIL S/O LATE B. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/AT ADRIKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577527.

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S C., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

G.P SHARADAMMA D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O ANEKERE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 572 613

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. C T PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 20.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HOSADURGA, DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.212/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL., CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC; AT; HOSADURGA.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2013, passed in R.A.No.39/2010 by the Itinerary Senior Civil Judge, Hosadurga confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.212/2007 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

¶26

to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the legal heirs of original plaintiff and respondent is the defendant.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶28

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

¶29

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with one Geetha i.e., the daughter of late Shivdrurappa resident of Narayanapura Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District on 05.06.1981. Out of the wedlock, children by name Deepak Patil and Jagadeesh Patil were born to the plaintiff and Geetha. During the first week of October, 2007, the plaintiff received a notice from the Court of Civil Jduge (Jr.Dvn.) and JMFC, Channarayapatna in Crl.Misc. No.384/2007 filed by defendant, seeking for maintenance. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant has alleged in the petition that the defendant is the wife of the plaintiff and their marriage was performed on 15.01.1982 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Channarayapatna. Son by name A.S.Praddep was born out of their wedlock. After the receipt of notice from the Civil Court, the plaintiff enquired about the defendant and came to know that she is working

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶32

as a Anganavadi teacher and with a bad vices. The defendant is in the habit of filing similar kind of petitions against many persons and making victims of her bad vices. The plaintiff never married the defendant and she is not the wife of the plaintiff and she has filed a criminal miscellaneous petition to harass the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

¶33

Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant is the legally wedded wife of plaintiff and her marriage was performed with the plaintiff on 15.01.1982 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Channarayapatna. It is contended that the marriage of the plaintiff with Geetha was performed in the year 1985 by suppressing his first marriage with the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant are known to each other since from 1978 and the plaintiff was residing with the defendant in her village Anekere. They had a love affair for long time which ended in marriage and same was registered. It is

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶35

further contended that the plaintiff was in the habit of writing love letters to the defendant in his own hand writing. It is contended that the plaintiff has filed this suit at the instigation of Geetha. Hence, on these grounds she sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶36

The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said

¶37

pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶38

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is not the wife of plaintiff?

¶39

2. What order or decree?

¶40

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the

¶41

plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant examined herself as DW-1 and got examined three witnesses as DW-2 to DW-4 and got marked 100 documents as Exs.D1 to D100. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue No.1 in negative and consequently dismissed the suit vide judgment dated

¶42

19.10.2010.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶45

The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and

¶46

decree passed in the above said suit, filed an appeal in R.A.No.39/2010 before the Itinerary Senior Civil Judge at Hosadurga.

¶47

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the

¶48

parties, has framed the following points for consideration:

¶49

1. Whether trial Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit of plaintiff?

¶50

2. Whether impugned judgment and decree call for interference in this appeal?

¶51

3. what order?

¶52

The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciating the

¶53

oral and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in negative and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.07.2013. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, has filed this second appeal.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶57

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the

¶58

marriage of the plaintiff is performed with Geetha on 05.06.1981 and out of their wedlock, two children were born to the couples. He submits that the defendant is a stranger to the plaintiff and there is no relationship as husband and wife between the plaintiff and the defendant. He submits that the defendant in order to harass the plaintiff filed the petition seeking for maintenance. After the receipt of notice from the Civil Court, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised that the defendant is claiming to be the wife of the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff has produced documents to demonstrate that his marriage was solemnised with Geetha and not with the defendant. He submits that the courts below have not properly appreciated the material placed on record. Hence, on these ground, prays to allow the appeal.

¶59

Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶62

The plaintiff in order to prove his case

¶63

examined himself as PW.1 and has deposed that the marriage of plaintiff was performed with Smt. Geetha on 05.06.1981 and out of their wedlock, Smt. Geetha gave birth to two children, namely Deepak Patil and Jagadeesh Patil. The plaintiff had no connection with the defendant. The defendant filed petition seeking for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.384/2007 on the file Civil Judge, (Jr.Dvn.) and JMFC, Channarayapatna. The Civil Court issued a notice to the plaintiff. After the receipt of notice from the Civil Court, it is learned that the defendant is the wife of plaintiff and their marriage was performed on 15.01.1982 and same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Channarayapatna and out of their wedlock, defendant gave birth to one child by name A.S.Pradeep. The defendant is working as Anganavadi teacher and having a bad vices and in order to harass the plaintiff, created a false story. The plaintiff in support of his case produced genealogical tree marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the photographs to demonstrate that his marriage was

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶65

performed with Geetha, Ex.P3 is photo bill, Ex.P4 is the marriage invitation card of plaintiff with Geetha and Exs.P5 and P6 are the identity cards. In order to establish that the marriage of the plaintiff with Geetha on 05.06.1981, the plaintiff has not examined any persons who have attended the alleged marriage. The documents i.e., Ex.P4 is the marriage invitation card, it is a private document and it has no sanctity in the eyes of law and further, the plaintiff has not examined the person who printed the marriage invitation card i.e., Ex.P4. The plaintiff except examining himself has not produced any other records.

¶66

In rebuttal, the defendant was examined as DW.1 and she has deposed that her marriage was performed with the plaintiff on 15.01.1982 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Channarayapatna. After marriage, they led happy marriage life and out of their wedlock, the defendant gave birth to one male child by name Pradeep and further, the defendant knows the plaintiff since from 1978 and they had love affair and the plaintiff used to

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶69

write a love letter. In order to prove that the plaintiff had written the letters to the defendant, the defendant has produced letters marked as Ex.D5 to D100 and also produced Ex.D1 i.e., marriage agreement to show that her marriage was performed with plaintiff. Further in order to demonstrate that her marriage was performed with plaintiff, she has examined one Nagaraja as DW.2, who has deposed that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Channayrayapatna and he was present at the time of registration. He deposed that since the plaintiff was resident of Anekere, he knows him and he has also stated that in connection with the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, an agreement came to be executed between them as per Ex.D1. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness in the course of cross examination. Defendant also examined one Manjegowda as DW.3. He has reiterated the examination-in-chief of DW.2. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. Defendant also examined her son i.e.,

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶72

A.S.Pradeep as DW.4, who has deposed that the plaintiff is his father and defendant is the mother and he used to ask money from him whenever he was in need of money. From the perusal of the evidence of DW.1 to DW4 and Ex.D1, the defendant has proved that her marriage was performed with the plaintiff on 15.01.1982 in the office of Sub-Registrar Channarayapatna. Ex.D1 came into existence during undisputed period. The plaintiff has not challenged Ex.D1. Ex.D1 came to be registered as per Section 3 of Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976. The defendant has also produced voters identity card of the defendant and her son i.e., Ex.D4, which discloses the father's name of DW.4 as Shankarappa and husband's name of the defendant is shown as Shankarappa i.e., the plaintiff. In order to prove the relationship between the parties, it is necessary to examine section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'), which reads as under:

¶73

"50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion,

¶74

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶75

expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family of otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.

¶76

Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in prosecution under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)".

¶77

Section 50 of the Act contemplates that when the Court has to form opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by the conduct as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, has a special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact.

¶78

Admittedly, in the instant case, DW.2 and DW3 are the residents of Anekere and the plaintiff is also resident of Anekere. DW.2 and DW.3 had a special knowledge of relationship of the plaintiff and defendant. Further, the plaintiff has not pointed out any enemity with DW.2 and 3 who have deposed against the plaintiff.

¶79

The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence was justified in dismissing the suit

¶80

13 -

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC:38132 RSA No. 37 of 2014

¶82

filed by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court on reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence was justified in dismissing the appeal. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration and any grounds for

¶83

interference with impugned judgments and decrees.

¶84

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶85

I proceed to pass the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

The appeal is dismissed.

¶88

The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are confirmed.

¶89

No order as to the costs.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

SSB

Smt. Geetha v. G.P Sharadamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geetha v. G.P Sharadamma

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

Venkataramaiah Vs Hanumanthappa

K Ramachandra Bhatta Vs Smt Nagarathna

Sri Durga Education Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dyavegowda Vs Rajashekar

The Branch Manager Vs Sri D P Yathiraj

Sri M Pillappa Vs Smt Bagya