Kambanaika vs Puttalakshmi & Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in Crl.Mis.No.194/2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. passed by the

Court of Civil Judge, H.D.Kote, which is confirmed by the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Court, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, by its order dated

11.8.2017 in Crl.R.P.No.308/2014.

For the purpose of convenience and easy understanding, the ranks of the parties as per the ranks in the Trial Court is retained.

The petitioners, by name Smt.Puttalakshmi and another have filed this petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent, Sri

Kambanaika, seeking maintenance of Rs.1 000/- per month. The petitioner No.1 claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and

petitioner No.2 is the daughter born to their wedlock. On further allegation that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the

petitioners and that, they have no other source to maintain themselves, on these pleadings, they approached the Trial Court for grant of

maintenance.

In response to the Court summons, the respondent appeared before the Court and he denied the relationship and also denied the physical and

mental harassment given to the petitioner No.1. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following points for

consideration:-

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioner proves that respondent willfully refused and neglected to maintain her and driven out of the house of the respondent?

Answering these two points in the affirmative, the Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the petitioners and an

amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

The petitioner got herself examined as PW1. In order to prove the relationship, she has produced Exhibits-P1 to P6, viz., P1-School

Certificate, P2 and P3-RTCs, P4-Election I.D. card, P5-School Certificate and P6-Ration Card.

The respondent also examined himself as RW1 and examined one more witness, RW2 and produced the documents, viz., Exs.R1 & R2 -

Election I.D. Card, Ex.R3 & R4 - Aadhar Card, Ex.R5 - Ration Card and Ex.R6 - School Admission extract.

These documents have been meticulously considered by the Trial Court. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial

Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1 has established the relationship between herself and the respondent and further, the

paternity of the child. The Trial Court has accepted the corroborative materials from the surrounding circumstances. Considering the oral and

documentary evidence, very particularly, it has noted that there is no person by name Kambanaika in the said Village, except the respondent.

Therefore, the Court has come to the conclusion that the name found on Exs.P1 to P6, i.e. Kambanaika is the husband of petitioner No.1 and

father of petitioner No.2. The Court has also considered the documents produced by the respondent and on appreciation of the factual aspects has

come to such a conclusion.

Being aggrieved by the above said order, the respondent - husband preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.308/2014 before the VIII

Additional District & Sessions Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur. The Revisional Court also re-appreciated after reconsidering the documentary

and oral evidence and arrived at a conclusion as that of the Trial Court.

Further, the Revisional Court has also relied upon the various decisions of Apex Court, particularly, the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC

675 in the case of DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATI v. BIDYUT PRAVADIXIT AND ANOTHER , wherein, the Apex Court has observed

that, on the relationship between the parties, a finding can be given by the Criminal Court tentatively, as the proceedings are summary in nature and

final determination of the relationship between the parties has to be decided by the Civil Court, if the party approaches the Civil Court.

Therefore, looking to the above set of facts and circumstances of the case and the legal aspect discussed by the Trial Court and the Revisional

Court, where both Courts have given a finding on the basis of factual aspects of the case, the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court and

the Revisional Court cannot be interfered with while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is only a tentative opinion given to the

Courts, subject to any decision that may be rendered by the Civil Court with regard to the relationship between the parties.

Therefore, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner

herein is at liberty to file an appropriate civil suit for declaration that the respondent No.1 is not his wife and respondent No.2 is not his child. If he

succeeds in the civil suit, on the basis of such decree, he can move the Criminal Court for cancellation or modification of the maintenance order of

the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court.

With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:-

''Petition is dismissed.''

In view of the dismissal of the criminal petition, I.A.No.2/17 for stay also stands dismissed.