Bangalore District Court
) Smt. Lakkamma vs ) Sri B. Ramaiah on 31 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A. BAL., LLB., LLM.
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2015
Crl.Misc.NO.174-2014
PETITIONER: 1) Smt. Lakkamma,
W/o B. Ramaiah,
Age: Major,
R/at Type-1/11,
IVRI Quarters,
IVRI Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024
VS.
RESPONDENT: 1) Sri B. Ramaiah,
S/o Bangarappa,
Age: 58 years,
Shivakote Post,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bangalore North.
***
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/s.12 of D.V.Act seeking for reliefs U/s.18, 19, 20, 22 of the D.V.Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were working at IVRI, Hebbal, Bangalore. That due 2 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014 to good understanding both the petitioner and respondent decided to get married in a simple manner and got married at Dharmasthala, Dakshina Kannada of Karnataka in the year 1999. That the petitioner led matrimonial life with the respondent at Hesarghatta, Bangalore north Taluk.
3. That the petitioner and the respondent had led cordial marital life in the beginning, but after some years the respondent started to neglect the petitioner without any valid reasons. The petitioner is the 2nd wife of the respondent she had the knowledge that the respondent had married for the first time with another lady by name Smt. Jayamma and that the said Jayamma has expired. That the petitioner had married the respondent with the knowledge that the respondent's first wife Smt. Jayamma had expired.
4. The petitioner had looked after the children born to Smt. Jayamma and the respondent. The respondent started to ill- treat the petitioner by using filthy language and was not providing maintenance to the petitioner though the respondent is drawing salary and is having immovable 3 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014 properties in his name. The petitioner had tolerated the torture inflicted by the respondent with a good hope that the respondent would mend his behavior, but the respondent failed to mend his behavior and neglected the petitioner, with no other alternative the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home in the year 2008 and started to lead life with her brothers at Hebbal in Bangalore. The respondent subsequently has got married to another woman and started to lead life with the said lady.
5. For the reasons said above the petitioner prays for the relief U/s.18, 19, 20 & 22.
6. Heard.
7. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought U/s.18, 19, 20 & 22 of D.V.Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following 4 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014 REASONS
9. POINT No.1: The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were working at IVRI, Hebbal, Bangalore. That due to good understandings both the petitioner and respondent decided to get married in a simple manner and got married at Dharmasthala, Dakshina Kannada of Karnataka in the year 1999. That the petitioner lead matrimonial life with the respondent at Hesarghatta, Bangalore north Taluk.
10. That the petitioner and the respondent had lead cordial marital life in the beginning, but after some years the respondent started neglect the petitioner without any valid reasons. The petitioner is the 2nd wife of the respondent she had the knowledge that the respondent had married for the first time with another lady by name Smt. Jayamma and that the said Jayamma has expired. That the petitioner had married the respondent with the knowledge that the respondent's first wife Smt. Jayamma had expired.
11. The petitioner had looked after the children born to Smt. Jayamma and the respondent. The respondent started to ill- treat the petitioner by using filthy language and was not 5 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014 providing maintenance to the petitioner though the respondent is drawing salary and is having immovable properties in his name. The petitioner had tolerated the torture inflicted by the respondent with a good hope that the respondent would mend his behavior, but the respondent failed to mend his behavior and neglected the petitioner with no other alternative the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home in the year 2008 and started to lead life with her brothers at Hebbal in Bangalore. The respondent subsequently has got married to another woman and started to lead life with the said lady.
12. In the present case the petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 by way of affidavit and has reiterated the petition averments. The petitioner has got marked notice issued to the respondent at Ex.P.1, RPAD receipts for having sent notice to the respondent at Ex.P.2 & 3. The notice issued by way of RPAD addressed to respondent by way of RPAD has returned un-served, as the respondent has refused to receive the notice. The petitioner has produced two photographs of marriage. In the present case the respondent has not appeared before the 6 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014 court to challenge the petition filed by the petitioner leading to unchallenged and un-rebutted evidence of P.W.1. The court is left with no option, but to believe the case of the petitioner. In a petition filed under D.V.Act or 125 of Cr.P.C., the court need not look for strict proof of evidence in order to prove the marriage, but however in the present case the photographs of marriage has been produced in the present case which have not been marked as the photographs are secondary evidence. In the present case the petitioner has not pleaded as to in which designation the respondent is working in IVRI of Bangalore. In order to know as to in which designation the respondent is working in IVRI, Bangalore and to know what is the salary of the respondent. The petitioner in the present case has not produced any document to prove the salary of the respondent however as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a healthy and able bodied person has to maintain his wife and children. With respect to reliefs sought U/s.18, 19 & 22 there is no ground made out. Accordingly, I proceed to answer point No.1 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
7 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014
13. POINT No.2: In view of the detailed discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The petition U/s.12 of D.V.Act is allowed in part.
The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the date of petition till life time of the petitioner.
No order is passed with respect to releifs U/s.18, 19 & 22 of D.V.Act.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 31st day of August 2015).
(SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) M.M.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
P.W.1: Smt. Lakkamma
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1: Notice Ex.P.2 & 3: Receipts Ex.P.4: RPAD post
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NIL 8 Crl.Misc.No.174-2014
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NIL (SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) M.M.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE