Allowed

Shanta W/O Jagdish Hulakoti v. Jagadish S/O Basavanayya Hulakoti

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025RPFC/100056/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision by the second wife against dismissal of her maintenance claim. The Family Court had rejected it because she was a second wife. Relying on Badshah v. Urmila, the High Court held she was kept in the dark about the first marriage, set aside the order and remanded for quantification of maintenance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shanta W/O Jagdish Hulakoti Vs Jagadish S/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100056 OF 2023 (-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANTA W/O. JAGDISH HULAKOTI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SRINANGAR, SHAKTI COLONY, DIST. DHARWAD-580003.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:02:24 +0530

¶15

JAGADISH S/O. BASAVANAYYA HULAKOTI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/O. BASAVA JOTI NILA, BEHIND CANARA BANK, HOSUR, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580021.

¶16

(BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT DHARWAD IN CRL. MISC.NO.147/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ALLOW THE CRL.MISC.NO.147/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.147/2020, challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’) dismissing the claim petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

The Family Court by impugned order declined to

¶28

entertain the petition on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife of the respondent.

¶29

In this regard, Sri. Shiva Shirur, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another¹ and argued that the respondent has not

¶30

whispered about his earlier marriage and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires interference.

¶31

1 (2014) 1 SCC 188

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶34

Per contra, Sri. D. M. Malli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the first marriage of the respondent with one Smt. Uma and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

On careful examination of the deposition of DW1 makes it clear that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized, as the petitioner and her family members have been informed that the marriage of the respondent with his first wife was ended with dissolution of marriage. In this regard following the declaration of made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah (supra) paragraph Nos.15 to 17 reads as under:

¶36

“15. Firstly, in Chanmuniya case, the parties had been living together for a long time and on that basis question arose as to whether there would be a presumption of marriage between the two because of the said reason, thus, giving rise to claim of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by interpreting the term "wife" widely. The Court has impressed that if man and woman have been living together for a long time even without a valid marriage, as in that case, term of valid marriage entitling such a woman to maintenance should be drawn and a woman in such a case should be entitled

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶38

to maintain application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. On the other hand, in the present case, respondent No.1 has been able to prove, by cogent and strong evidence, that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had been married each other.

¶39

Secondly, as already discussed above, when the marriage between respondent No.1 and petitioner was solemnized, the petitioner had kept the respondent No.1 in dark about her first marriage. A false representation was given to respondent No.1 that he was single and was competent to enter into martial tie with respondent No. 1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. as respondent No.1 is not "legally wedded wife" of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgments we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgments of this Court in Adhav and Savitaben cases would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgment would not apply to those

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶41

cases where a man marriages second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. That is the only way two sets of judgments can be reconciled and harmonized.

¶42

Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the Constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the Courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the Court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.”

¶43

Following the declaration made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioner is unaware about the existence of the first marriage of the respondent with one Smt. Uma and they were kept dark with regard to the said factual aspect and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:629 RPFC No. 100056 of 2023

¶45

counsel appearing for the petitioner and it is a fit case to allow the petition and remand the matter to the Family Court for quantification of the maintenance.

¶46

In the result, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Revision Petition is allowed.

¶49

(ii) The order dated 18.07.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.147/2020 on issue No.1 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the Family Court for answering issue No.5 for quantification of the maintenance.

¶50

(iii) Since the parties are represented through their learned counsel and in order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 12.02.2025 at 11.00 a.m., without awaiting any further notice from the Family Court.

¶51

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶52

SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Shanta W/O Jagdish Hulakoti v. Jagadish S/O Basavanayya Hulakoti

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shanta W/O Jagdish Hulakoti v. Jagadish S/O Basavanayya Hulakoti

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sujatha Alias Sunitha W/O a Mahesha D/O Pompapathi Vs a Mahesh S/O Muniyappa

Sandeep S/O. Shivappa Kakhandaki Vs Smt Laxmi W/O. Sandeep Kakhandaki

Chanabasappa S/O. Halappa Annigeri Vs Basavannevva W/O. Shivabasappa Nittur

Shri Sharanayya S/O Shekayya Hiremath Vs Smt Vanita Aliyas Kavya W/O Sharanayya Hiremath

Smt. Boya Asha W/O Honnur Rudraiah Vs Sri Honnuru Rudraiah S/O Honnuru Yerriswamy

Shiddanagouda S/O. Ningangoudapatil, Vs Gurappa S/O Siddappa Ukkali (Since Dead))