IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAD RA7H:IM:*E.V.: A' RPFC NO. 2 OF,2O'1'O~. « BETWEEN: ,2 SRIBRAJARPA, . S/O GODABANAHALA BAI-II"BASAPR,A, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, A * WORKING : KPTCL.[V1ACAN'IC,,_," YARAGUNTA STATI_C):N, -_ ' NO.66,M.U.NS. , YARAGUNTA VILLAGE. , ' DAVANAGE«RE«»TAL:.,u+ii<* RPFC FILED U/S 19 (4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT F"W._r4'.v.AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:O3.l1.2009, PASSED IN cRL.MIS.NO.18/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY Ix.) COURT, DAVANGERE PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. THIS RPFC IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-- " ORDER
This petition is against the ord’e’r’-date-Cd in V
Crl. Misc. No. 18/2008 on the rsie«,,orC_Ct’he CClearrieci«.
Family Court, Davanagere, thepetitiorier”toT payi’
maintenance.
2. Heardgyboth A
3. “~~.|’V1_e’i’_e’i’i’_:1 invoked Section 125
Cr.P.C. the petitioner at
Rs.8,000’/_– per’ that she was married to
him accordiiirigttoVth_eii:_:re.ligious rites in the year 1980 in
.–.,Linges3’hvvaV’ra__Ternple.._._i.n«Davnanagere. Out of the wedlock
V”–.siieV’ga.ve.__b’irth:to.son, who is presently 18 or 19 years age.
sheTei’iegeeltiet after hirth of the child the petitioner
‘.neglectecTgher and deprived basic necessities to her and
‘»even”to the child. Consequently, she took refuge in the
___”ihoi;§se of her relatives and lived in that position till recently.
She alleged tht the petitioner has willfully negiected her and
has thereby deprived her of her marital iife.
4. Petitioner entered appearance and
respondent is his wife. In this regard he
married to one Nagarathna in the:-~”ye’ar &19_80_Lalrivd_
her has two children with whom hells deri.ied:”thla’t._VV
the petitioner and he are ‘rel’ated.V’in,.’t~E3ef_:rr::at’ri’moniall”
relationship and assertively,~’de.n:ie’d”-».thatA ‘Mruthyunjaya
named by the respondent ishis.g§enetic’V:ls’o.n”;
5. _;l=ead_ respondent in
support of herself as PW1 and also
on Ex.P1 — Birth
certificate;name is shown as father of
male child. born-ion”i0;O8:1982 to the respondent; Ex.P2 —-
fiT’rans’ferfjertificate in which in relevant column at father’s
in-ame tne:'”‘-«petitio–vner’s name is entered; Ex.P3 – Election
‘ identity caraarl the respondent; Ex.P-4 ~– certificate issued by
VyKam’alananda Hospital and Ex.P5 ~– salary certificate of
petitioner. The petitioner herein on his behalf examined
‘:fhi.rnself and three others and relied on Ex.D1 to D12.
as
\}
6. To negate all her contentions petitioner
summoned school records relating to Mruthyunjaya, alleged
to be his son. He also summoned the admission ‘regrigster
and the original application submitted by the
admit Mruthyunjaya to school. Those wereulfi
received by the trial Court and ma,rl<ed..4a$ ciefe,nce"ev'vi._cI'ence.
It is evident from the app|ica=ti.o_.n fillediby the»"'i'*espondlen'tl
admit Mruthyunjaya to schoo|,'V'll'th_a't ovnellilgudramuni
is mentioned in the "the father.
Thereafter, subsequent_.to,:’f§.lirlg_VVAc§,l a~pjp.li’cation the name
Of R”‘”a”Tlii1iAiiisaéfi name of the
Detitioner l.’ll”‘ac’el. Besides, the date
appear_:ing_! been altered as 07~O6–
1988. Apartifromlvi’t,’th’e’~«.._e’xtract of the school register was
SUfT];;~]30.r}ed,Vil3»_W?1l’Ch also at relevant column where father
name ;”has_””t.o be mentioned, name of Rudramuni was
Al”‘me’nt,iAo~ned,V_ has been struck off to enter the name of
the”‘4..pe_titioner — Rajappa. On both these documents
.fi”–Jpedtitiorler contends that the evidence tendered by the
‘ ”r_es~po:ndent was undoubtedly, concocted version and petition
~-vvas liable to be rejected.
K
7. The learned trial Judge rejected the contention
of the petitioner and has allowed the petition directing him
to pay maintenance to the respondent, against whi:c_h’a.this
petition is filed.
8. As has been observed in para-‘vs’upjr*a:”t»he«_on:l’y’»
material evidence produced by the resrpond’en’tr..’is’-e><t:i=a_ct;oli
school register to show thatVpetitionlerfsl'nam:e"%'i5: grivteredlsinilis.
the relevant column to .VV_Vfatlheri_:v'nanfie when
Mruthyunjaya was respondent has
relied on the petitioner by
that the name of
the petrtiovne'VgrA:*'r;i.a::i?iitsvvhastggbiéein"entefired after striking off the
name which was originally
mentionedlli'–Thivs Vas_pe:;t been totally ignored by the trial
-‘W._vCou_rf’«:.inLrecvording~a._..finding on the relationship between the
_’.’v’v’l.iT_\._’i.’t:’hot1t referring to this evidence the learned
‘v._VcounselRforV respondent would submit that Rudrarnuni has
A “:lf”cted’~«_.as a guardian of Mruthyunjaya and therefore, his
name was entered in relevant column. Later, they removed
his name and inserted name of the petitioner. This
or/l*’M”‘*’
tr
explanation was not tendered before the trial Court. Even
other wise, whenever there is a correction in the original
records, the person who carried out correction musVti»-speak
for it. Further, the custodian of the record_s””rtn_’us:tf.
summoned to speak about such corrections,-‘*~ it
had relied on the extract of those:=.,docurnTen’ts,’ ATher’efe,r_e’;;1Vi_t
was incumbent upon her to»’s..howV”w,_h’y alte’r’atj’o.nV’ inl
records was effected and was Rwhfeethper do’n._ef”honest|y. In
the absence of it, it has_._”to’ be ¢;_onsi–cj’e,red_, as interpolation.
Once the document is As.h.o:w–n :,,ta”rnpere,d”‘ it had lost its
credence andHevideritsiarv,va_lu£e. _
10. “”” si–tuation”‘th-elltrial Court has seriously
erred and ignored the tampered
original enwtriesvv in -__hoE.,din..f_;7f’ the relationship between the
,_part§_e§.. ,The__findAing»v.o.f.the trial Court is therefore, set aside.
V.’-._P’etit’ion_ ‘vfileidV’~b’y~«.the respondent is rejected. The amount
deposited fbvcithevfpetitioner is ordered to be refunded to him.
.. 1’ With this observation this petition is disposed of.
” VVK
sd/1
Iud§9