B»)
.§E,7§3GEMEE'€T-
This appeai is directed against the dismigsal of :*igina;E.$£;ii ~._
E'3Q.§65{)§ flied by the appellant hereunder seeking past maitéfééiiaéééeji -5 é
ssf Rs.36,GQ8f- @; Rs. Z{}0G!- per znm1ih'a:1_d aE§§§'.fif£Li?€ n.:3§'1i:§2§23:.:1c¢i'§
f thé ggresent
afiveal areastmder: VV A h' 'V
The appe§1a;1t3._.:v!ié{éf;2;;I@iie;;:2 "ii'iéil court seeking
maintenance as $136 is married ii) the
respondent-ifizsbgrééf__}.'£u.g:%$:heé as per tbs szustoms
prevailing in 35 dders and reiatives.
Subsequent’ :1: £113 snarriaigé, she started living ai Kusnosr viflage,
h€1s:;!3_a.z3é. The respozadezrv-hugband was net demted
ta t:§’i’e: w:i’i_l~”: ihévaiher hand, he wag wandering here and there
3 V a x?3:g 3?;%:1if–V._’fi:ss?iiE%§:§i«1T1E any avacation akiiig amt Eivaiihemi neither far
V:;’rz§:i’$’-L w§f=’::. Gn questieaing the game, awarding m the
‘V 駧;§%éE’f.;é§zii, flL1sband was annoyeé ané he threw her away frem the
T gszggiia 93?’ E23: ms: efibris she was 139% taken Eack: ‘ts {he
nfiiatrinxarziai hanze and far about 5 yasgrss she was, wiifiziiy deserted
by fie? husband. She fimher ecmtends that she being an iiiiteraie
person is net capable of maintaining herself and the resgieriiiegéie
husband ewes Sy.No,?6,-91 measuring 4 acres 33 ‘
income from the saié land. Apart from.:ihat,. he iseli, V’
away the said preperty in erder to depri§};eVt§ieA_fightT{éf.
to enjoy the fiuits of the decree, tiiefefere, issuagzeelvéf mitice, “
she filed the above suit. VVVV H
2. The by the respendem
liusband ve;”‘_§{V u marriage between the
parties. ieprosy for more {ham 2%
years, :he:'”‘ef0’re.{. queetiééfi. ef—e%i3~;§f1e marrying him would not arise,
He fufaezj eeefene$’tE&t feffier of appeiiant by Harrie Basanna is 3
. ‘e1e’.~§e’ him undue advantage of the i§i–healiI1 ef
e—:”e$;§eVri£1’eiit»iij1′ e{def~~ie knock away the preperty ef the respondent, he
he;g»._p’1«0jeei;es::I:'<i'.';1ifs daughter as the wife of respendent. He further
' '"=__V""eenienésv.1;Eat the appeiiam: was net of souné mixzd, therefoee, she
rezaaified umnarried and both the appeilant 3516 he: father are greedy
% Wazisei were irying fee knee-$2 away the ereeefiy by game hoeisz (If creek.
V Therefore, he seeks fer dismfissal efthe above suit.
3. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Judge fi’&n’i€;d as
many as 9 issues and aii the issues were heid against Eh»;
plaintiff.
4. We have heard the iearned C:>§;I:§;§7ei’s:« {)1} §énfi:’r;=a%’*;
have gang thwugh ihe judgement a§i£i__ A’ iz:isé ‘ .ez’ai
doeurnsntary eviéence p!ac%§§i”;>n ‘ :« __ ‘V ‘ ~– .
Sfiaceréiszg to the is regponéeaf
an ,?.f3.5.£999 at AIr.é’E’:cr–.évidenr:e, though her
fafher was 5f the Sufi, she couid net
{he date of her evidence,
ihersf:>re,vv”‘::i;:e” Smt Ratrlabai, The specific
mntezitfizzngf Atw0″wiinesées is to the effeci that appeiiarrt being
. . ‘”é:1’3§fi::%Vi c;%$t:siii..c§f the §r;é§;§&011de;1i, got tzzafiied ta him inspite 0? 112::
fa£§%.¢ih’é£f sztfferirlg fiem Iepmsy. It is :10: 1:116 case where the
ap§éii.;a;\::t-}32if§§’4i%;a1S degerfzed him becausa ef his ii§~heaith’ On the
{:;§%;1e;’ §1fii::i,_,:accer;E§a:’:t§ zashexa she persuaéeé her
_ AE;:,I’s’§3sm.<.'i '£6 i:?"'v'i1'i%;'7§ interest in Séivifiéi' accupziiéars er av:3~::aii:'3:z§ E36 wag
aggaaéayeé with Em? 313$ fixrsw Em' sat sf 'aha image» s§aa::'f:::
ésfefiae efiéze reaponéerzt is tats {he effect thai figs agpazfiiaai Efzzsirzg fizz
dzmgizier ef big ma€e:':33,I uncle was fijgéizg :3 make uniawfixigairi,
iiakirzg undue adizaniage <::f%1£s; is-presy: Ha examined txx{Q__$'efiti1e4s::eS« V.
ezmiending that there was no marriage of any sor€"".%§et«3;x::§ii
appefiant anti the regpondezzt. So far a5."fl'ire4"f;2cfs:::n1 of
cmzeemed, neither the appeliatgt wa$1__ ébic to 'pzéézxire géxiy V'
documentary evidence :10? the respeggéient in 0rdé1'utQ"_:shéw fies was
marfied to someone; eise. t%iévv.'1¥é%§1;%{§i1dent, he £3 nci:
married and he [V}3_g;}::,?-§'?';iC£1':.. appellant haw
categoricaiiy 20.5.1999, ihe marriage
betx&'een:V:Vvf'}M§V ;e%;$§fident was perferined and
witneséses who are examined a3
DWS 2 3:35 théfe..$5fas$io:iia1'1;£age between the partiss and the suit is
V. 3;$z?1":.'* I}i"e..'F§rai11 arnf Mr Basarma, father of the appeiiant.
reiied upan the: 0:33 evidezéce 01' DW-2 8::
§E¥~*3__a3z¢i.~E’;$j’§}.$6 – v0’1:er’§ 353? and came it) com:§usin that if the
Vappeéiarzfi vfzis the wife ef the respanésfitfi her name might to have
_ Eseiz. .mé::i:i0z1eé at the address given in the V0ter’s list pertaining to
ratsgozifiefgt-izzisband and he 3ES{} refers £0 flie severa}
* Vfiiiizgarrzrna wiry EvIallap;;a” shown at D66 and comes tar cenciusicn
that the documents relied upon by the respondent are
in iirze light of the fact that the priest who perfanfigfi’ _& V’
was not esramineé and 36 also the relatiikes {fir iriegds ‘w§j;_k:’–a££¢:3’d§éV”A
me weddéng were not examines}. Apparent1§;,:!._is not tfga ésasje of the
appellant that ‘saythapadi’ was pefihgfnad tine
According to her as per. A’ fifévfiaiéfit in the
cammunity efkuruba; the and she does not
femexnber the the marriage.
Having rsgagig V’&2i;;:;1:;§e»lEaz1t comes §'()I}’i the
backg”o3}fiid’£:f4é;1}ei iiiiféfége who was hardly aged 20
years csne cazmct expect her ta:
rernembe; fl1e i:1§1j1i.1te.d’etéi1s vliké the narne of the priest and the list
v Mrréf i§.2vh3’~-a£tendét!V”}iéfv marriage. Apart fI’_£;}fi’} her evidencé, the
reiy upon is the evidence of her parents. As
akeafifi} stated; “E§:”:fv.faiher was {mt alive as on the date of her evidence
and her’1;1g:i:her alone was alive and ska was examixied befare the
6, 33:3 appefiani arté the respondent ifiaing first aousirig £3
:. adm:’ited. 1:2 otizer wesrds, the appeiiant £3 not a stranger {<3 the
rézspzmdent. Accardixzg ta the respondent, he has fine znere~b:g:? E§§;:sf.j'£§f§%'
mania Bheemesha and he is separateé Emig ba¢.Is:__éflt»'.§ in?
passession and enjayrnént sf his indi2?%;ééuaI::pic§pé§*tié%s.'
cezztends he wanieé ta Se-E} this prQ;p_ar'ty of—4 acre3s iii .
Housing sejciety in erder te get amfiéfiii; fb§.V%hé':'§rezV$Vt.tnent
<35 ieprasy sufféred by }1ifi1; data'? {fluid have
examined same wimes-gas gfiarriage. Merely
became Shae éiidg the friends who
atiefiéed the which has a gupport
ufs 114 (gf éééiroyed, On the other hmldg
'ihere is 3 §re§Eu«m;§{i€4:V}.i;ia§_LjVi1€f' when she enters the wiinass box
and an Qaflz SE16 3;: asghe was' married {:1 the regpozzdeni and her
V' mothézf.'§u£:s:mnti.a£es t'§'1AeW§:'1'LéA<;V'i evidence, Apparentiy, :10 phetographs,
"*.z§§ié<;,#=_;iw;§'éE§s-zflfifvaaiy 30:': came to be made at the time of marriage
50 £'§f£A:.:i§ §'ié Eiévye relfied upon' Even if the reiaiives and frierzés
*-w._ '§«£?%6Z'€ exéinifieé, it waulé not be difficuit for the respondent ta
7c=:§¥1j*:.is.::;{ii.'t}1a: they are afi interesied witnesses, Therefore, thus in
. §é:*€$§::ii except the era} evidamze, tha appefizmi aazznet be
~ , .éx;3ected to establish her case thmrugh any ether evidence like
' ., //r. '
the test of cross-examination. if they are certain and definiiei'
the marital reiationship betwefin the appellant and tbs?' ~
they Should give a definite answer befo£*eA»wth_eAc€t§§if£'. '¢éfv V
hand, by the tirne they were crass-e2iar1;1;i!1Ve:d;_A_'ti*:%yAwéfe
give any straight forward answer'»é;§:'ci~V..1:ep1£ bnj*Varé;";notM
aware. Such answers were fqvifiz z'eg§vi:1 'jtQ'ih¢ s{1.g ge–<.:%tion §f house
mimber of respondent is no{“k3V:z;}w1i’*€9 they knew where
the house is situ§1;§d..__ ‘Jthe if appellant
Ningamma DW-2 also
says he is. net. a§¥afe ghe Vbeiééweaen the appeilazri and the
responézéiit. ‘He details of the father of the
appellant. IQ~IVég;¢j€s3V admitting the fact that fie has not
state_d fgaafiiézixs-*;Vi_’V :~.1ppe1lant’s father is a court bird and a
p.%;f{~:at;.,A.V£}1a§af0£e, at his instance, the suit was filed by the
the cr0ss*~examir;a{ion and the adrnission by
V :~§:’élI’;V’ W’he2’i the specific defence of the respoigdmt W
V’4 2 ~i11isba:;:é t9 the effect; that only because if their greediness, the
-‘ ané her father Eiave filed this suit ‘£3 knack eff the §§’€¥p€¥’§’_’§;’
T <9" . . . .
77.’ and when he examined the W’E”£i1éSS€i§ ii) sagport his eezzientxensfi Gne
I2
refzzrreé to the narne of Nigaznrna displayed at sevesral p3acé_S §f
voters’ list which was not brought on record by an the ._ b
Court. When he was referring to
entitled to Iook into the othar cements bf doc1;..r:*§r;s’1.t” u:t1ie’£§s a *’
specific fact was brought on record’és.:é}n exhibkw. Cu1;iou;s§y, gave do
not find the surname of
As referred to in tl1eVjudgen:V¢:;f£T’ there could
be several could be several
Mailappa SE05 Ex.I.136 was not a
appeiiant was not residing
ii’: the éddréss ffgrespondent. Eva} otherwise, this
£»*ote:r’s,§–ist Atvvfhe .2005 eiections. When the details for
V. ‘Aeiédqral :’A<)vI"Imi$§'ére ceilecied, whether the appeliant was
Tt23. e."s.fiéLié é;ddx'ess of the responders: is 3,159 a matter of féict
whi¢§;..__agai:;~h;§S in depend upon many facts and circumstances, If
fiveé three years fiom 1999, by 2002, she has lefi {he
_ ma.ti'%rns;:£nial heme at the instance of the husband–res§onéez2t,
dafétxitéiy her name wouid net be refiected is': the address of the
14
be we difficuk ta deny the relationship betweefi ~ H
appéllam. The learned Trial Judge except rebuttiag H
as naxraied in the plaint ané the writte::”$f’5afemetn’§§ as; §:1″‘A.:}f2e 1
evidence of the parties, he ta-tall}? i’g3;ore€i ‘héisr Vtha: :Cl'{:{t1:1=_VV11 a,§3 tocvi
appreciate the evidence both om} and é1é€:u1n¢3ta1j”;’§*on1 evéiry angle
keeping in mind that the judicizimsfl niinci vvbEé’c_autious to the fact
that parties wcyuld goto any..e;;$::r1§t t<}::+ Vt}i';»:5i'r i<h:giti2nate: gcai.
Uititnateiy, the'_;:i;.)9réi¢iai:c1i" :.§§fid¢§:§3 ifiéihing but the facts
piaced befom t}3§'::{?..€z§;rt @323} evidence or threagh
documentary __ feviderice of the paz*:ie$ are
weighed againsi Veach'-et'§:§r,..tEieLV Cgurt must exercisa its; disafiretian
judicéuzgififia uwhiie ":1ppi?éciat£ng the eviéerme kseyhig in iilifid the
of Evidencs Act €?Sp€£3§&fl}' Sec} 14 of the
"ii§, ' C0m"t aim has :9 mks ink} saizsiéeraiian $36
" H " "bT;a§.:;3<',g:j@:;r:§"E's3r2*i which the partias ctasme fixzvm, wheihez' ihsay were
~;:a';:a§.£e' :3f' firiizging 0:: record the avidemse Eike 3,. §3;E3"_§f Wém is
'éiigicaiafi ané a=v;¢§§=«:s'a:*sed in w@r%éE'§s affairs. 7§% sf ifie wamen
9» '4 xfiopufiaiion sf this; country being ififiierate and ameng {item 5G%
15
beiogg Eat: the {ma} areas, the Court caxinat expect guch atia’
bring on recard tha evidence teclnrically. T338 .
supgiaofied enly by her mothar wiflrwut a;1y~in.:iE¢
her when her father is dead, we ca.r: ‘:m
situation when she kaecked ai =.L_1oa>r ¥c:.f_’ tE’:e.;_’see1V:<i:3g 'V
nzahztenance.
11. Having gegard tQ,3}!:[. and the
discussions macfifv a,f’v;: $f that the iria} mar:
istz-taiiy igmrefi be Esekzssci ink} whiie
appreaiatéfig c:s:j*1.V’ i*:.’;;;:,%§;:a:f£% he was ‘£{}”{a§3§;’ iéeniifyizag
vaiih one ;}Az’1f:”3;}-L9£.<:. §%%§§{é€ié%§§;§§usba22é Vi§"£i§a§§}=" saying zvhaiayer
wag sigissi iiié %:;§,:$?:éa :2d $2155. the gr;:;r§?a,::%Ef§=,_.bV $1-g%§’V-v.a:E§d 33:3? appfecéaéa iéza avéégnce wiih sash
piecisimz. iead is fiaa impzzgneé jazdgameiai. ‘W6 are fif $13
” §::5;;;§.,§:EQ:*s fizzieé fine izéai cmiri was mt jzzsiifieé in rejecting the gait azzé
–.;iC’éf3 £;3§”:;”§iiig}}’, the appeai £3 ailowed.
$2, ‘Fizs appéiiani £3 antiiied far figs 53565 sslaimeé in the mi:
9’ ia. pas: maintanance cf R.s.3é§G%8f- ami future mainie:za11ce of
16
R3. ifififis”-« per mzmih from the data 9? fifing of the suit__ ééiéf’ _
azagiss thmughout, She is 3330 antiiieé fir a:r:2a€i:’3g :é:i ‘4 “~
S3*.Z’\,Ex?éf1 measurizzg 2% acres 33 guzfiaéa
desstribed at E};:.P.1 the ETC e:<;tr3;c%.,_ A " V V» " V