- 1 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 Reserved on : 13.10.2025 Pronounced on : 01.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3193 OF 2023 (FC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NIRMALA BAI, W/O LATE MADHAV RAO, AND W/O CHANDURAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.117, EWS, HANDICAPPED COLONY, BADAMKAN NR MOHALLA, MYSORE 570007. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GURUDATH B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUSHPABAI, W/O CHANDU RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT D.No.8, BHADRA BLOCK, JYOTHINAGAR, MYSORE 570019. AND ALSO AT ARSI, 21C BLOCK, NEAR URDU SCHOOL, VIGILANCE, MAHADEV UPSTAIRS, 1ST FLOOR, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 JYOTHINAGAR, POLICE QUARTERS NEAR BHADRA BLOCK OPPOSITE, MYSORE 570019. 2. SRI. CHANDU RAO, S/O VIJENDRA RAO DUMALE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT D No.8, BHADRA BLOCK, JYOTHINAGAR, MYSORE 570019, AND ALSO AT ARSI, 21C BLOCK, NEAR URDU SCHOOL, VIGILANCE, MAHADEV UPSTAIRS, 1ST FLOOR, JYOTHINAGAR, POLICE QUARTERS NEAR, BHADRA BLOCK OPPOSITE, MYSORE 570019. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED IN O.S.No.18/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, DECREEING THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri B.S. Gurudath, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served, but remain unrepresented. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru1. The appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No.2 before the Family Court. 3. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.18/2022, assailing the judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Family Court. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.2; and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 from changing her name in his service register, and further restraining 1 Family Court - 4 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 defendant No.1 from interfering with the matrimonial life of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. 4.1 Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.2, their marriage having been solemnized on 13.05.2005 at Nimishamba Temple, Srirangapatna. It is further pleaded that defendant No.1 is a widow with two children and that her marriage with defendant No.2 was duly performed. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 filed a petition under Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, seeking maintenance, which came to be allowed by the Principal Family Court, Mysuru, directing defendant No.2 to pay maintenance. Various documents were marked in support of her case. 4.2 Defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting his marriage with the plaintiff, which was solemnized on 11.06.1995 at Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Kalkunike, Hunsur Town, Mysuru District, and also admitting that two children were born from the said wedlock. 2 Cr.P.C. - 5 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 4.3. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was solemnized much prior to the marriage claimed by defendant No.1 with defendant No.2. The Family Court further observed that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was not disputed by defendant No.1. It was, therefore, held that in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19553, the marriage of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 is void. Accordingly, the Family Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff to be the legally wedded wife of defendant No.2, restrained defendant No.2 from changing the name of the plaintiff in his service records, and further restrained defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful marital life of the plaintiff with defendant No.2. 5. Sri B.S. Gurudath, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Family Court committed an error in not appreciating that defendant No.1 had proved her marriage with defendant No.2, which was solemnized on 13.05.2005 at Nimishamba Temple, Srirangapatna. Learned counsel further submits that in the petition filed under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance, defendant No.2 had not 3 Act - 6 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 disputed the relationship and had paid maintenance to defendant No.1. The order granting maintenance has not been challenged by the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that defendant No.1 has established her marriage with defendant No.2. Learned counsel contends that, in the light of the evidence on record, the decree declaring the plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of defendant No.2 is erroneous. 6. The respondents, though served, have chosen not to appear before this Court. Hence, service of notice is held to be sufficient. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to decide the appeal on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the material available on record. 7. It is evident from the record that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was solemnized on 11.06.1995 at Vasavi Kalyana Mantapa, Kalkunike, Hunsur Town, Mysuru District, and that they have been blessed with two children aged about 25 and 15 years. The evidence on record establishes the factum of their marriage. Furthermore, the subsistence of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is not disputed by defendant No.1. - 7 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 8. The defence of defendant No.1 is that her marriage with defendant No.2 was solemnized on 13.05.2005 at Nimishamba Temple, Srirangapatna, and that the Family Court, while entertaining her petition under Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C., had ordered maintenance, which was complied with by defendant No.2. It is, therefore, contended that the marriage of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 stands proved. 9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 solemnized on 11.06.1995 stands proved. Even if the evidence led by defendant No.1 is accepted as proved, it would only establish that a marriage ceremony between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was performed, but not its validity in law. The order passed by the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 is of no assistance to defendant No.1, as the said order does not deal with the validity of the alleged marriage. The acceptance of the order of maintenance, at the most, may prove the factum of marriage between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, but not its legal validity. The issue that arises for consideration in the present case is the validity of the said marriage. - 8 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 10. The Family Court has recorded a finding that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, solemnized on 11.06.1995, stands proved. It has further held that the marriage between defendant Nos.1 and 2, said to have been solemnized on 13.05.2005, even if accepted, is void in view of Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Act. The Family Court, upon considering the evidence on record, held that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is valid. It further found that the marriage asserted to have been contracted between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took place during the subsistence of the valid marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The Family Court therefore concluded that, in view of Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Act, the marriage between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is void. 11. The finding recorded by the Family Court is based on the evidence on record and is in conformity with Sections 5 and 11 of the Act. No contrary material has been placed before this Court for consideration. Upon perusal of the record, we find no reason to differ from the findings rendered by the Family Court. 12. Despite the aforesaid legal position, a lawful right is nevertheless available to the second wife to claim maintenance under the Act [(2004) 9 SCC 617]. Further, in a suit for - 9 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 partition, the second wife would be entitled to a share in the property to the extent of the share devolving upon the husband [(2020) 11 SCC 232]. These rights, however, do not, by themselves, validate the second marriage, which would otherwise be hit by the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Act. 13. Under the circumstances, the decree of permanent injunction would militate against the aforesaid legal rights of the appellant. Moreover, the very enforceability of a decree of permanent injunction in matters pertaining to marital relationships is itself doubtful. Therefore, the decree of permanent injunction requires modification. We accordingly hold that the appellant is permanently restrained from interfering in the relationship between defendant Nos. 1 and 2, except to the extent that she may lawfully and validly assert her legal rights against her husband. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the order of the Family Court is well-reasoned, is supported by the evidence on record, and that the appellant has not made out any ground warranting interference therewith. - 10 - MFA No. 3193 of 2023 15. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV