IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.696 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Chikkamma, W/o. Dasanna, Aged about 46 years, 2. Kum. Malashri, D/o. Dasanna, Aged about 19 years, Both are r/o Babbur Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Now residing at Kasturirangappanahally Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District.
… Petitioners (By Sri. H.K. Ravi, for Sri. H. Kantha Raja, Advocates) AND:
Dasanna S/o Gane Rangappa, Aged about 57 years, R/at Babbur Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.
… Respondent (By Sri. Umesh P.B., for Sri. R.B. Deshpande, Advocates) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.62/2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Chitradurga and the judgment and order dated 13.08.2010 in Crl.Misc.No.250/2008 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hiriyur and consequently allow the Crl. Misc. No.250/2008 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hiriyur.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners are before this Court challenging the concurrent orders passed by the courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Petitioners herein filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from respondent on the ground that petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 25.03.1982 and in the wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born to them. According to the petitioners, respondent neglected to maintain them since 1992 and hence, the petitioners claimed maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondent denied the marriage and paternity of petitioner No.2 and took up a plea that one Rathnamma was his lawful wife and he has two children through her and thus, he disputed his liability to pay the maintenance claimed by the petitioners.
3. Before the trial court, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and produced in evidence 6 documents namely, wedding card (Ex.P1), Election voters list (Ex.P2), School attested certificates (Ex.P3) & (Ex.P4), Ration card (Ex.P5) and Election Identity Card (Ex.P6). In rebuttal, respondent examined himself as RW-1 and three independent witnesses as RWs 2 to 4 and produced 22 documents as Exs.R1 to R22.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, by order dated 13.08.2010, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that the petitioners have failed to prove the relationship entitling them for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners approached the revisional court and even the revisional court by its order dated 04.08.2011 dismissed the revision petition confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have committed an error in appreciating the documentary evidence produced by the parties. The documents produced by the petitioners prima-facie establish that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and petitioner No.2 is the daughter born to them in the said wedlock. Both the courts below have disbelieved the documents produced by the petitioners without assigning reasons and therefore it is necessary for this Court to re-appreciate the said evidence so as to do complete justice in the matter.
7. Though this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot appreciate the evidence, yet having regard to the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of mis construction of the documents great injustice has been caused to the petitioners. I have examined the documents relied on by the petitioners in support of the case set up by them before the trial court.
8. The first document relied on by the petitioners is Ex.P1 – the marriage invitation card. In the said marriage invitation card, it is mentioned that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on Sunday between 9.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 25.03.1982. To rebut the said document, respondent in his evidence has produced the calendar of the year 1982 which discloses that 25.03.1982 was Thursday and not Sunday as printed in Ex.P1, thereby, casting doubt on the genuineness of the said document. Even otherwise, Ex.P1 – marriage invitation card is not a conclusive proof of marriage.
9. Ex.P2 is said to be the copy of voters list.
Petitioners have produced only one sheet of the said document, which does not disclose as to which constituency the said voters list relates to. Apart from that, without the entire set of documents produced before the trial court solely on the basis of a loose sheet of the voters list, it cannot be concluded that petitioner No.1 was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2 was born to them in that union.
10. Exs.P3 and P4 are the attested certificates issued by the Head Master of the Government High School, Hiriyur. Though, in these documents, it is mentioned that D.Rangaswamy bin Dasanna was a student studying in the said school and his date of birth is 03.12.1987 and petitioner No.2 – D.Malashri d/o Dasanna born on 10.03.1991, none of these documents refer to the date of admission of the said children or the registration number of the said wards, as such, even these documents do not inspire confidence to hold that these are the true extracts of the original maintained in the school. Even otherwise, petitioners have not examined author of the said documents, as result, these documents are also not proved in accordance with law. Under the said circumstances, the courts below were justified in disbelieving these documents.
11. Finally, the petitioners have produced a copy of Ration card at ExP5. On a bare perusal of this document, it does not inspire confidence to hold that it was issued by the competent authority. It is stated to have been issued on 01.07.2006. But according to petitioner No.1, she snapped relationship with the respondent with effect from 1992. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be believed that respondent would obtain the ration card in his name and in the name of the petitioners, as if to preserve the evidence of his alleged marriage.
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has admitted in his evidence that Ex.P5 relates to him and therefore he is bound by the said document cannot be accepted. I have gone through the evidence. What is admitted therein is that it pertains to petitioner No.1. That does not mean that the entries therein are also admitted by the petitioners. Respondent appears to have stated that it relates to him as his name is shown therein, but, having regard to the other circumstances discussed above, in my view, the documents relied on by the petitioner cannot be taken as the basis to declare the marital relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent. Both the courts below on considering these aspects have recorded a finding of fact based on oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and I do not find any reason to hold a different view in the matter. The courts below have assigned cogent reasons to disbelieve the documents produced by the petitioners. These orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.