The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has held {that a} girl who knowingly marries a person believing him to be a divorcee can not declare upkeep beneath Part 125 of the Code of Prison Process (CrPC) if she did not confirm whether or not the divorce decree had attained finality or was stayed in attraction.
Justice Geetha Ok.B. dismissed a revision petition filed by a lady difficult the Household Courtroom’s order denying her upkeep.
“When as soon as it is delivered to the data of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent individual will make efforts to confirm the genuineness of mentioned factum; whether or not any attraction in opposition to the mentioned order is filed, pending or not.
“Moreover, even after respondent has taken rivalry that MFA No.101347/2015 is pending, petitioner has not made any efforts to plead that by suppressing pendency of mentioned attraction or by suppressing the keep order handed in mentioned MFA, he married her. There is no such thing as a such averment both within the petition or in her affidavit proof; and she or he has not deposed so in her crossexamination. Underneath these circumstances, when the wedding of respondent with first spouse remains to be subsisting, respondent isn’t imagined to marry the petitioner,” the Courtroom noticed.
It added, “Moreover, provided that this factum of second marriage is suppressed and respondent married the petitioner; then she is entitled for upkeep. However that’s not so within the current case.”
Being attentive to the petitioner’s instructional background, the Courtroom mentioned that she was “worldly smart” and able to understanding the authorized standing of divorce proceedings.
“The petitioner is Ph.D. holder in Kannada Philosophy. Thus, she isn’t an illiterate individual to say that she doesn’t know something about these elements. She was working as Lecturer in Hukkeri Faculty for one yr within the yr 2015. Thus, she is worldly smart,” the Courtroom famous.
The Courtroom mentioned that the petitioner has not made any averments in her petition, affidavit or cross-examination to indicate that the respondent suppressed pendency of attraction in opposition to divorce order or the keep order. It additionally discovered that the petitioner failed to ascertain that the respondent made her resign her job.
Distinguishing the case from the Supreme Courtroom ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 and the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom’s ruling in Smt. Monika @ Satyawati v. State of UP (2024), the Courtroom mentioned, “In each the aforesaid instances, the factum of first marriage was hid fraudulently on the time of second marriage by the husband. Nevertheless, that’s not the scenario within the current case.”
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the revision petition.
Case: A vs S
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025
