Nijalingayya @ Vijayappa and Others vs Laxmidevi @ Gavisiddavva

Manjula Chellur, J.—The contention of the Petitioners except 1, 3 and 4, no prima facie case is made out against the other Petitioners. The contention of the complaint lodged by the first wife of the first Petitioner-Nijalingayya and sworn statement of P.W.1 would prima facie go to show that the second Petitioner is no other than the alleged second wife of the first Petitioner. Petitioners-3 and 4 are the parents of the first Petitioner-husband. Petitioners 5 and 6 are the parents of the second wife i.e., second Petitioner herein. Petitioners-7 to 14 are the relatives of Petitioners 1 and 2 and Petitioner 15 is alleged to have performed the so called second marriage as a priest.

The contents of paras-4 and 5 of the complaint would prima facie make out a case that for the second marriage of first Petitioner with the second Petitioner herein they all co-operated and participated on 4.9.1999 at Makarabbi Village. Unfortunately this was done in the presence of the complainant and the witnesses. The entire contention do not speak about the knowledge of the priest about the first marriage. The priest is neither from the village of the first Petitioner nor from the village of the Ist wife . Nowhere in the complaint the complainant says he was aware of the first marriage of the first Petitioner with the complainant being in subsistence. Under these circumstances, a prima facie case is made out against all the Petitioners except Petitioner No. 15.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings only against 15th accused the priest alleged to have performed the so called second marriage between the first and the second Petitioner. So far as others are concerned, the proceedings would continue.