High Court Karnataka High Court

Maruteppa Venkappa Jadinaikar vs Siddawwa on 13 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Maruteppa Venkappa Jadinaikar vs Siddawwa on 13 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda


1

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRT;Jus’ri(31!3,%Is:.ANm¢:x;~A %
Iviaruteppa’v’ _
Aged about 35 yeg_a;’s,._Oa¢:
RI0- Kundasamgi, ‘ratuk=
Dist1i(;t:’ ‘

61h

u

Aged”*aho\’1t,_65 years, 099: Agficlfltum
I3 “‘l’h1II;.;”} Q1311 l’.I’I’I’I’:

l\f Us $7!-llul-Ia-lEa’lI.lI.’|.fl.!I[[.¢I.’ I angina I..JIum|cI.I.|.|.n

Diatrict:~”Ba,»g’all_<cs»t,j _ M

:39

_ _ Age:$"50' y.e_a';ra, do —

Agr::: 55 3,!-.:a..v:.I, All – do — …P¢-titicmcm

A .-1……-…-..d-..\

'I-'5… nn 5__L..;|._.__.1_ _

Sm$S§.1déz$vwa

_ W1 0.-Marateppa Jedinailcar

Major

" RIO. Karadigudda, Taluk Badeuni
Di.-.#rict: Rmagallsoti Re mm in

tn…………….1_..¢ ………..u
no .l.lLlCl.l.l. ac: vwu
J

NI

rm.:.. …:…..z…… .. . … :. . …. '
um vnuuuau puuuuu Ln uudfii' fi"9fi$'.fi'-:"?1_ Ann n 'in

3

-I
I
0′
‘-I
3

‘runs. vxyif. i”r’.y.’,’_

praying to set aside the rder dated 29.06.2004;.passed’e’by-the ‘

I’)…._. ‘II… .. …-._ on – out –
rnzuiumg Offiucr, 1- an I. ‘1’ i”‘au-is Luufl.-E}, ~~ » . ._m-an

LEI.’

t~.m….’..I1…¢ L»,
gain us’

Crl.R.P.No.11/2004 and order dated'”30.lO.’20034 peigaed._by fhe

–_. — ….. .. ..| mrl ‘. ……’ ….J. . – V an .
Civfi Judge: (Jl’.DI1.; 33 u’I’v’5r\..o, B_uIi.”u:.u_:i, g;1:.C.C.’EI’G.~’ft57fgv02

(P.C.No.41/2000) and quash en«tire_’ ~pro:c:eed!n’ga’ ~ aga’17:f1et

petitirmere 35 etc.
This petition coming on fdzifir . heai”
made the following:

4.44 A1

.~–5;”‘ 1
The petitioners 11, 12 & 3
1’_n_ (LL “far: «ofienoe punishable

—ma:-nu» flIflh.’\’C..3|%’§

uuucs 1;

‘ an ..-n ..I_.v_-

85 luau H113 flefififi” quaan

P 44ijngBV

V _ Counsel for petitioners would submit

.’ neiéthelft ebmplaint nor in swam statement, them is any

attribute knowledge of marriage of accused No.1

Wit. -..-I,w.1._d_nfl ____-_n_=, pmaenoe of petitioners in
” -“—” ‘aka-Irueue man-fie ef $ .:..-ed No.1 with. …m~1.:-J.

No.2 wouid not constitute o ‘G:

_&L, _ _

:f1fi”Fit_’s riéay, Eh’ Co’i..ifi

U3

Ln:— n-mung: I-1-guru-an-Isa-II-A lnurn-I-II-Ivl.-III-:1 (hf V’

A I
To I I3 guuu uuvufill nvusluvuta us us! us”,-;.§.\.|_

sworn statement The complaint} ave1mcntsi]~i1s’ie’- ‘V

reiterated in sworn statement. cf

sc relationship of accused isstsgted .

Accused No. 1 _the 2 V of

– mspondenummplainsgdt is wife of

accused No.1. of accused

No.2. the No.1. Accused

!*.’cs.5 & mm 4 .5-;I.’,=”…

III-IILI u.I..~ ac.-real-u .9,—. ” – ‘hnuririo -I 5 ‘6 . ‘–~–‘

._ L’. -. * ., .. ..”.’.’.’……. .. ……
‘ 3 iuuL.euuu’iN .1.A”u&”.d NG.}.1is?u

16 an un
the fsthcisin-gaw’ A sistgxvpf-accused No.1. Accused i”i’.i2 35
13 __am close . V V1§elaL’–ivcs’dV and friends of accused No.1.

between panics, in particular,

‘ ‘accused Nos.1 to 10, it cannot be said they

” of subsistence of marriage of accused No.1

fiazsucndent. therefore. their presence and parficipation

2 ~ a,l_leged bigamcu maniage of accused No.1 with

‘, 10 Iuafi-nun Inn: _g_:-:3

-Ht

. . .. ~.

man I! I ‘
‘II’1.u..I. uuulluuu 115-1., h} -. _\.r _u.u_

specific aiiegaiions. section 109 cannni’

them. The nature of mlafionshifi’ of:_1A”2

with accused No.1 has not It

whether accused Noa.11 as ‘«_V§::ufV’:eIul’f§3iatcnce of
mania’ gc of if;-as;p%ondcI;t.VAV Therefore.
impugned pmopedingaVV_gf3 ‘fib 1;cfifioncm 2 as 3

as

111: the following}-

oavan
‘ mt” a%1%%’pc:ifigfi is allowed in part. The impugned

‘aa_V_ t1:ieyV’:wlatc to petitioners 2 as 3 arrayed as

»’.|-I\3l.4!.I. 1. £1 I.l\rJI.IJI.r I. Alvin: VI

. pfififiofiaa iii’It:’iatcs to jiefiuiofiefi 1 65 -‘r is uis”””””.

SNN