- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103137 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. BHIMARAYAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ARMY, R/O: SHINDOGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 117. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA RAJSHEKAR SAVADATTI & SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. MANJULA W/O. MALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, CALLS HERSELF AS W/O. BASAVARAJ BHAJANTRI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHINDOGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI NOW RESIDING AT CHOLACHGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE – 587 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 09/2023, DATED 09.10.2023, BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CMC NO. 124/2016, DATED 20.12.2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BADAMI. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Crl.Rev.P.No.9/2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote and the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in CMC No.124/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami. 2. The respondent claiming to be wife of the petitioner has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance in CMC No.124/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami. In the said petition the respondent contended that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage has been taken place at Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti on 16.05.211 as per customs and traditions of their community. After marriage, the respondent went to the house of the petitioner to lead marital life with him. During the said marital life of the respondent and petitioner, one female child was born on 14.02.2012 and it was born dead. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 petitioner led marital life with the respondent for four years. Thereafter, the petitioner started consuming liquor and demanding to bring gold and dowry and harassed the respondent. Inspite of advice of elders, the petitioner did not lead marital life with the respondent. The petitioner drove out the respondent from his house and therefore, she started residing in her parent’s house. On these grounds she prayed for grant of maintenance. The respondent –wife further contended that petitioner is working in the Indian Army and getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- and he is having immovable prosperities and his earning is Rs.10 lakhs per year. 3. The petitioner in the said petition has filed his objections and denied the entire case of the respondent and he has disputed marriage between the respondent and petitioner. He contended that he married with on Sakkubai of Kulagod Village, Gokak Taluk on 03.05.2009 and out of their marriage wedlock two children were born by name Tejaswini and Samarth. He contended that he has given - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 reply to the notice got issued by the respondent denying marriage with her and continuing marriage with Sakkubai having two children. He contended that the respondent is widow, she is resident of Ron, Gadag Distirct, she is having immovable properties and she has taken a male child in adoption. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. In order to prove the case, the respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The petitioner has examined himself as R.W.1, examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R10. After hearing arguments on both sides, the learned Magistrate has formulated points for consideration and passed the order dated 20.12.2022 granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) from the date of petition till life time or until she is disentitled for claiming of maintenance and directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of maintenance. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 5. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the learned Magistrate in Crl.Rev.P.No.9/2023. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing arguments on both sides has dismissed the said Criminal Revision Petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 09.10.2023. The petitioner has challenged both orders in this petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration of evidence of R.W.1 and documents produced by him. Learned Magistrate has swayed away by Ex.P6 and signature of the petitioner on it. The petitioner has already married with on Sakkubai on 03.05.2009 and he is having two children out of that marriage and their birth certificates are at Ex.R7 and R8. The dependant ID cards are issued by Army officials to his wife Sakkubai and his daughter as per Ex.R9 and R10. The said documents - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 itself indicate that the petitioner was already married with one Sakkubai on 03.05.2009 as the alleged date of marriage is 16.05.2011 between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent alleged to have married with this petitioner during substance of his earlier marriage and therefore, the marriage is void marriage. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance. Even the Revision Court has not taken into consideration of this aspect and erred in dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sangeetha Rathore Vs Naresh Rathore1, where in it is held that a second wife whose marriage is void on account of survival of the first marriage would not be legally wedded wife, and therefore would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. She has also placed reliances on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court 1 In Criminal Revision No.4495/2018 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 in the case of Doly Rani Vs Manish Kumar Chanchal2 and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Sunita Vs Sanjay Kumar decided on 12.10.2023. With these, she prayed to allow the petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that Ex.P-1 is a printed marriage invitation card of the petitioner with the respondent and it is solemnized on 16.05.2011 at Sri. Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti. Ex.P-7 and P-8 are photographs of the respondent and petitioner and the petitioner has admitted the photos in his evidence. Ex.P-6 is an agreement, which is in writing on the stamp paper and it is signed by petitioner and respondent and other witnesses, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he has married to the respondent. 9. Ex.P-10 establishes that the respondent had delivered a fresh still born female fetus on 14.02.2012 and her name is shown as Smt. Manjula Basavaraj Bajantri in it. Ex.P-11 shows that respondent-Manjula is resident of 2 Reported in 2024 INSC 355 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 Shindogi village. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge have rightly passed the impugned orders. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for quashing the said impugned orders. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused impugned orders and trial Court records. Considering the grounds urged by them, the following point arises for consideration: i. Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for setting aside the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in CMC No.124/216, by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami and the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.9/2023 by Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote? 11. My answer to the above point is in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 12. It is the case of the respondent in her petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance is that, she is married to the petitioner on 16.05.2011 and she led marital life with him for four years. The petitioner in his reply to the notice got issued by the respondent has denied his marriage with the respondent and contended that he is married to one Sakkubai and out of that marriage, two children were born by name Tejaswini and Samarth. 13. In order to establish the said marriage, the respondent-wife has relied on the documents i.e., Ex.P-1 printed marriage invitation card, two photographs–Exs.P-7 and P-8 and agreement i.e., writing on a stamp paper- Ex.P-6. As per Ex.P-1, the marriage of respondent with the petitioner has taken place on 16.05.2011 at Sri. Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti. Ex.R-5 is a certificate issued by Shri. Shirdi Saibaba Sadbhakta Mandali Samiti, Saundatti, wherein, it is stated that no marriages will be performed in Sri. Sai Baba Mandir and no marriage has been performed - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 on 16.05.2011 between Manjula and Basavaraj in the temple. 14. Ex.P-6 is an agreement-writing on a bond paper and it is stated to be signed by petitioner-Basavaraj Bajantri and respondent-Manjula Bajantri. Even though, RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted his signature on Ex.P-6 but has stated that his signature can be done by any other person. In Ex.P-6, it is stated that petitioner- Basavaraj was having some physical relationship with respondent-Manjula who is a daughter of his maternal uncle and he has decided to marry her even though he is already married. The said stamp paper has been purchased on 23.11.2011. In the said Ex.P-6, there is no mention of any marriage on 16.05.2011 between petitioner and respondent in Sai Baba Temple, Saudatti. 15. As per Ex.P-1, the date of marriage of petitioner with respondent is 16.05.2011 and even though Ex.P-6 is subsequent to the said date, there is no mention regarding the marriage of petitioner with the respondent. In Ex.P-6, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 it is stated that petitioner-Basavaraj has already married. In the said aspect, the contention of the petitioner- Basavaraj is that he is already married to one Sakkubai and having two children born out of that marriage. Ex.R-6 is a printed marriage invitation card of the marriage of petitioner-Basavraj with one Sakkubai D/o Hanumanth U. Bhajantri and she is resident of Kulagod Village and date of marriage is 03.05.2009. 16. Ex.R-7 is birth certificate of Tejaswini Basavaraj Bajantri and date of birth is 24.02.2010 wherein, name of mother is shown as Sakkubai Basavaraj Bajantri and name of father is shown as Basavaraj Bhimappa Bajantri. The place of birth is Kulagod Village, Gokak Taluk and residence of parents is shown as Shindogi village in Saudatti Taluk. The date of registration is 11.03.2010. The said birth has been registered with Birth and Death Registrar, City Muncipality, Gokak. In Ex.R-6, the parents place of Sakkubai- the wife of petitioner-Basavaraj is stated as Kulagod Village in Gokak Taluk and Tejaswini - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 being first child, her birth has taken place in the parents place of the said Sakkubai i.e., Kulagod Village, Gokak Taluk. 17. Ex.R-8 is Birth certificate of Samarth, wherein, the name of mother is shown as Sakkubai and name of father is shown as Basavaraj B.B. The date of birth is 06.02.2013. The said birth certificate has been registered with Birth and Death Registrar Nagar Nigam, Meerut. The said birth of Samarth has taken place in Meerut and place of parents at the time of birth of the child is shown as 19 ENGR REGT 191 Company Lekha Nagar, Meerut. The permanent address of parents is shown as Shindogi village in Saudatti Taluk. The said birth is registered on 04.10.2013. Ex.R-7 and R-8 clearly establishes that two children were born to petitioner-Basavaraj and Sakkubai out of their marriage. The petitioner-Basavaraj is in service in Indian Army. Ex.R-9 is dependent identity card of Sakkubai Basavaraj B. wherein, she is shown as wife of Basavaraj B.B and it is issued by Commanding officer, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 Engineer Regiment and date of issue is 02.07.2012. Ex.R- 10 is dependent identity card of Tejaswini, wherein, it is shown that she is daughter of Basavaraj B. B and it is issued on 29.11.2016. The joint photograph of petitioner with his wife is affixed on Ex.R-9. The said documents clearly establishes that petitioner-Basavaraj was married to one Sakkubai prior to the alleged marriage of respondent-Manjula with petitioner-Basavaraj dated 16.05.2011. 18. Ex.P-9 is Aadhar card of respondent- Manjula wherein, her name is shown as Manjula Bhajantri C/o Yallappa and residence is shown as Janata plot, Ward No.11, Ron and date of issue is 14.10.2011. The name of father of respondent-Manjula as shown in Ex.P-6 is Yellappa Bhajantri. Even though Ex.P-9 Aadhar card issued on 14.12.2011, her husband’s name Basavaraj is not shown in it. As on the date of issue of Ex.P-9-Aadhar card, the respondent- Manjula was residing in Janata Plot, Ward No.11, Ron. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 19. Ex.P-11 is Residence certificate of respondent issued by President, Gram Panchayat, Shindogi, it does not contain the name of the village in which she is residing and the name of village is left blank in it. After marriage, if the respondent-Manjula is residing in Shindogi that ought to have been mentioned in her Aadhar card Ex.P-9 which has been issued on 14.12.2011 as the alleged marriage took place on 16.05.2011. 20. Even if documents produced by the respondent- Manjula establishes her marriage with petitioner-Basavaraj i.e. a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage with Sakkubai. Therefore, the said marriage of petitioner with respondent is not a valid marriage. The respondent is daughter of maternal uncle of petitioner and therefore, she is aware of marriage of petitioner with Sakkubai. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge have failed to take into consideration the said aspects. The learned Magistrate has not considered the documents produced by the petitioner i.e., Ex.R-2-Reply - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 notice, Ex.R-6 Marriage invitation card. Ex.R-7 and R-8 - Birth certificates, Ex.R-9 and R-10 -dependent identity cards. 21. The learned Magistrate has erred in holding that the marriage of respondent with the petitioner has been proved by the respondent-Manjula and she is entitled for maintenance. Even the learned Sessions Judge has also erred in holding so, without considering the documents produced by the petitioner-Basavaraj. In view of the above order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, requires to be set aside. 22. In the result, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 09.10.2023, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4604 CRL.P No. 103137 of 2023 Bagalkote and the order dated 20.12.2022 in CMC No.124/2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami are set aside. iii. The amount in deposit, deposited by the petitioner is ordered to be refunded to him. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP para:1-7 RKM para:8-end CT-ASC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25