Partly allowed

Smt Janakamma v. Sri Javarappa

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024RPFC/110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Family Court for want of proof of a legal marriage. The High Court held that Aadhar card, employment card, voter's list and photographs, coupled with long cohabitation recognized by society, raised a presumption of wedlock under Section 114 Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Family Court order set aside; petitioner entitled to Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance from date of petition till lifetime; arrears payable within two months.

Smt Janakamma Vs Sri Javarappa — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1519 RPFC No. 110 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 110 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JANAKAMMA, W/O SRI. JAVARAPPA, 54 YEARS, R/AT D. NO. 39/1, CHAMUNDI HILLS MAIN ROAD, THAVARAKATTE VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. JAVARAPPA, S/O LATE SRI. CHIKKAIAH, 70 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 979, NEAR SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE, INDIRA NAGAR, (ITTIGEGUD) NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. V. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,1984, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2016 PASSED IN C.MIS 33/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:1519 RPFC No. 110 of 2017

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision petition is filed by the wife calling in question the order passed in C.Mis.No.33/2012 dated 20.04.2016 by the Court of Judge, Principal Family Court at Mysuru in dismissing the petition filed by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.

¶21

The petitioner claiming to be wife of the respondent has filed petition by alleging that respondent has deserted and ill-treated her and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to live separately. The Family Court has rejected the petition on the ground that there is no proof on the part of the petitioner to prove that she is legally wedded to the respondent – husband. Hence, she has challenged the order of rejection.

¶22

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is wife of the respondent and Exs.P.6, P.7,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:1519 RPFC No. 110 of 2017

¶26

P.8 prove that the respondent is shown as husband of the petitioner and therefore, just because there is no proof regarding religious rituals of marriage cannot be a ground to reject the petition. Therefore, prays to allow the petition and to grant maintenance amount.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of the respondent and there is no proof regarding marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the Family Court has rightly considered the facts and is justified in dismissing the petition.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that since the first wife of the respondent do not have child, therefore, with consent of the first wife, the respondent has married the petitioner and lived together as husband and wife and the entire society has recognized them as husband and wife. Though there are no evidence to prove the religious performance of marriage ceremony but Exs.P.6, P.7 and P.8 which are copies of Aadhar card, Employment card and Voter’s list prove that the respondent is shown as husband of the petitioner. Exs.P.9 to

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:1519 RPFC No. 110 of 2017

¶31

14 are photographs which prove that both the petitioner and respondent are standing together. As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a presumption accrues to the fact that if two persons are living together as husband and wife for longer period and the society has accepted them as husband and wife, then long relationship proves the status as husband and wife and the same is proved in the present case. Therefore, rejection of petition filed by the petitioner is not sustainable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance amount from the respondent.

¶32

Considering the fact that the petitioner and respondent both are living in Mysuru City and Ex.P.5 is the RTC copy, which proves that respondent is the owner of the agricultural land to the extent of 6 acres which is in Mysuru City. Therefore, the respondent herein is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner on every month. In terms of the above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The petition is allowed-in-part.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1519 RPFC No. 110 of 2017

¶36

ii. The order passed in C.Mis.No.33/2012 dated 20.04.2016 by the Court of Judge, Principal Family Court at Mysuru is hereby set aside and that the petitioner – wife is entitled to maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition till her lifetime.

¶37

iii. No order as to costs.

¶38

iv. The respondent shall pay arrears of maintenance amount as ordered within a period of two months from today and shall continue to pay every month

¶39

without fail.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Smt Janakamma v. Sri Javarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Janakamma v. Sri Javarappa

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

Sri Anjum Pasha Vs Smt. Sara Jabeen

Mr Karthik M Vs Icici Lombard General Inc,Co.,Ltd

M Ravikumar Vs Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Abdul Mujeeb Vs Aafreen Taj

Smt Sannamma Vs Smt Jayasheelamma

U. v. Lakshmi @ Srilakshmi Vs M. Harish