- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100410 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAY S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR BADAVANMATH, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. BELAVI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAXMI D/O. RAMACHANDRA MAGADUM, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KANCHAGARWADI, POST: YADRAV, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2022 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO SIT AT CHIKKODI IN R.A.NO.218/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUKKERI IN O.S. NO.30/2015 WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2022 in R.A.No.218/2018 passed by the VII-Additional District Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (for short the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 in O.S.No.30/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri (for short “the Trial Court”) dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of declaration that there has been no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant at any time and accordingly, sought for declaration that certificate of marriage bearing No.HKI- HM 27/2011-12 issued by the Registrar, Hukkeri is void as the defendant is not ‘wife’ of the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was working in Indian - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 Army and returned to Gokak to meet his wife-Asharani and his siblings. During his visit, he was using STD Booth, situate at Ankali Road and besides the said STD Booth, there was a sewing machine repair centre owned by one Ashok Patil. The defendant was visiting the said sewing machine repair centre and she developed illicit relationship with said Ashok Patil. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff along with his cousin brother-Manjunath Hiremath and adjacent shop owner-Ashok Patil had visited Belagavi city and on the very same day, the defendant came to the shop of Ashok Patil and there the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant by said Ashok Patil. Thereafter, the defendant developed relationship with the plaintiff but the plaintiff strongly denied such relationship with the defendant since the plaintiff was married and having a child. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant became pregnant and was trying to find a person who would marry and take responsibility of the child she was carrying. On 26.04.2011, the plaintiff went to STD Booth of his cousin brother situate at Ankali road, where the plaintiff was forcibly taken to Hukkeri Police Station by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 some unknown persons accompanied by the defendant. The plaintiff was forced to marry the defendant and was threatened in the event if he denied marrying the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration in O.S.No.30/2015. It is also further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has filed M.C.No.31/2012 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Hukkeri seeking dissolution of marriage and the said petition was withdrawn by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the defendant has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Raibag against the plaintiff, wherein the defendant has claimed that their marriage was registered before the Registrar at Hukkeri as stated above. It is the contention of the plaintiff that there was no ceremony of marriage as per the Hindu rites and customs and also the plaintiff has never cohabited with the defendant as a wife and no marriage was solemnised and accordingly, filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.30/2015. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was held on 26.04.2011 and thereafter marriage was registered on 27.04.2011. Thereafter, the defendant went to the house of the plaintiff at Belavi village of Hukkeri Taluk wherein regular marriage rituals have been made. Therefore, it is the case of the defendant that the averments made in the plaint are without any basis and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. It is also contended by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff has filed M.C.No.31/2012 before the competent Court seeking dissolution of marriage and same was withdrawn. Hence, the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and got marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D17. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 3.3. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred R.A.No.218/2018 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.12.2022 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.30/2015. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Mrityunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt. Sunanda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Sri. Mrityunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact with regard to presumption of the valid solemnisation of marriage under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 that both the Courts below have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that filing of M.C.No.31/2012 by the plaintiff, demonstrates the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant, without considering the fact that the withdrawal of the petition nullifies pleadings on record and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Smt. Sunanda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that the plaintiff assailing the marriage certificate dated 27.04.2011 issued by Registrar of Hukkeri as null and void as there was no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant. On contrary, the defendant urged that the plaintiff has married the defendant. The plaintiff in order to establish his case has examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and produced as many as 22 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. however, taking into - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 consideration the finding recorded by both the Courts below, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the said registered document is executed on account of threatening by the defendant and her well-wishers and further, the perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that Ex.P9 to Ex.P14 have been created for the purpose of nullifying the certificate of registration. 8. It is also to be noted that the plaintiff has stated that he had married one Asharani and she has been examined as PW6. On careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below as well as evidence of PW6 makes it clear that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff to protect himself illegally from the marriage with defendant. It is also to be noted that O.S.No.30/2015 was filed after the plaintiff withdrew M.C.No.31/2012, which makes it clear that the plaintiff has colluded with the said Asharani to defeat the legitimate right of the defendant and therefore, both the Courts below, after appreciating the material on record, have rightly dismissed the suit, which requires to be confirmed as the appellant herein has not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6872 RSA No. 100410 of 2023 made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as per Section 100 of CPC. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20