MR. ANNAPURNA S. HIPPARGI vs MR. SIDDARAM ALIAS SIDDARAMAPPA HIPPARGI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MS. ANNAPURNA S. HIPPARGI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O. MR. SIDDARAM @
SIDDARAMAPPA HIPPARGI,
C/O. MR. VEERAPPA TALAKALLA,
TH
10 CROSS, SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR,
ANAGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. SIDDARAM @ SIDDARAMAPPA HIPPARGI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SERVICE,
USTC, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
DHARWAD-580003.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.C.SUBBANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
CRL.MISC.NO.386/2021 FROM THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.04.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.386/2021 BY THE
I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI,
REJECTING MAINTENANCE AS CLAIMED THEREIN; AWARD SUCH
MAINTENANCE AS MAY BE CONSIDERED PROPER, TO THE REV.
PETITIONER HEREIN AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE
SAME FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF CRL.MISC.NO.386/2021
AND ETC.
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL ORDER
This is the revision petition filed under Section 19(4)
of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the dismissal of
maintenance petition filed by the wife under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.386/2021 dated 22.04.2025 on
the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Belagavi (for short ‘the Family Court’).
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as
they were before the Family Court for sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. The case of petitioner before the Family Court
in nutshell is that after dissolution of the first marriage of
respondent with one Madhushri @ Savitri in
M.C.No.176/2011 dated 31.03.2015, she came to know
that respondent is searching for a bride; afterwards she
met respondent who has told her and her parents that he
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
had earlier married with one Madhushri @ Savitri and said
marriage was dissolved by judgment and decree dated
31.03.2015 in M.C.No.176/2011 and after verifying the
said judgment and decree, petitioner agreed to marry the
respondent.
4. It is further contended in the petition that
marriage of petitioner with respondent has taken place on
01.07.2018 as per the rites and customs prevailing in
Hindu religion at Subhodhi Boudh Vihara Mangal
Karyalaya, Nerli, Hukkeri Taluka, Belagavi District. She
contended that after the marriage, she stayed with
respondent for 8 days and mentioned other details in the
petition. She contended that respondent treated her with
cruelty. He was locking her inside the house and directed
her not to open the windows; because of this cruelty, she
came out from the house of respondent and then she has
filed the present petition praying for maintenance because
she is unable to maintain herself.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
5. After service of notice, respondent appeared
through his counsel and filed his objection statement,
wherein he denied the averments made in the petition in
toto. He further stated that even though his earlier
marriage with Madhushri @ Savitri was dissolved by
decree of divorce dated 31.03.2015 in M.C.No.176/2011;
the same was challenged before Division Bench of this
Court in MFA No.101347/2015 and it is pending for further
adjudication. Thus, the marriage between respondent and
said Madhushri @ Savitri is still subsisting and thus there
is no question of him marrying the petitioner during
subsistence of said marriage. He further stated that
petitioner has filed one more petition under The Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in
Crl.Misc.No.253/2021 which is pending before JMFC-IV,
Belagavi. Further, petitioner has filed petition for
dissolution of her marriage with respondent, which is
pending in M.C.No.282/2022 before the Family Court,
Belagavi. Respondent is suffering from Arthritis and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
Osteoporosis and cannot walk properly. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. After completion of pleadings, the petitioner let
in her evidence and produced 19 documents.
7. Respondent has not let in any evidence, but
only cross-examined the petitioner.
8. After hearing arguments, the Family Court
dismissed the maintenance petition on the ground that the
judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of
respondent with one Madhushri @ Savitri is stayed in MFA
No.101347/2015 and thus the marriage of respondent
with said Madhushri @ Savitri is still subsisting and even
then petitioner knowing fully well these facts has
contented that she married him. Under these
circumstances, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before
this Court.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
10. Heard arguments of both sides.
11. Learned counsel for revision petitioner, Sri
P.V.Gunjal would submit that petitioner was not aware
about stay order passed by Division Bench of this Court in
MFA No.101347/2015. This fact was suppressed by the
respondent and he married her. He has not let in any
evidence. Even though petitioner is highly qualified, she is
not doing any job and respondent has not allowed her to
do her job when petitioner was living with him. Hence,
petitioner is entitled for maintenance.
12. In this regard, learned counsel for revision
petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and
Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 . and also the
judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Smt.Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and
Another in Criminal Revision No.196/2024 . Hence,
prayed for allowing the revision petition.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
13. Learned counsel-Sri S.C.Subbannavar
appearing for respondent-husband would submit that
petitioner knowing fully well that the marriage of
respondent with Madhushri @ Savitri is subsisting, insisted
the respondent to marry her and concocted the
photographs and produced before the Family court.
However, no such marriage has taken place between
respondent and petitioner and considering these aspects,
the Family Court rightly dismissed the petition. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of revision petition.
14. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the revision petition papers and the Family Court records,
the points that arise for consideration are:
“1. Whether the revision petitioner establishes
that she is the wife of respondent?
2. Whether the revision petitioner establishes
that suppressing the factum of stay order passed
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
in MFA No.101347/2015, respondent married
her?”
15. Finding of this Court on above points is in
NEGATIVE for the following:
REASONS
16. The revision petitioner has taken contention
that her marriage with respondent was taken place on
01.07.2018 at Subhodhi Boudh Vihara Mangal Karyalaya,
Nerli, Hukkeri Taluka, Belagavi District as per their rites
and customs prevailing in Hindu religion.
17. The strict proof of marriage is not required to
decide the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However,
petitioner herself contended that her marriage with
respondent has taken place as per Hindu rites and
customs.
18. In this regard, in the cross-examination, she
has categorically deposed that no Saptapadi ritual has
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
taken place; no sacred fire was lit in her marriage with
respondent. But according to her, it was performed as per
Bauddha religion and in this regard she has produced
certain photographs with CD and Certificate under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act.
19. In this Certificate, the petitioner has not stated
that who has taken these photographs from her Redmi
mobile. Anyway, respondent seriously disputed these
photographs in his objection statement and also at the
time of cross-examination of petitioner before the Family
Court.
20. Not only this point, another point urged by the
respondent is that his marriage with one Madhushri @
Savitri was dissolved by decree of divorce in
M.C.No.176/2011 as per judgment and decree dated
31.03.2015, but it was stayed by the Division Bench of
this Court in MFA No.101347/2015. In this regard,
petitioner in her cross-examination has deposed that
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
before her marriage with respondent, she has examined
the document pertaining to divorce of respondent and only
after she came to know that he is a divorcee, she
voluntarily married him. She has deposed that she does
not know that in MFA No.101347/2015, stay order is
passed in respect of said judgment and decree of divorce.
She admitted that because of said stay order; still the
marriage of respondent subsists with Madhushri @ Savitri.
Further, she knows that the said proceeding is pending
before the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner is
Ph.D. holder in Kannada Philosophy. Thus, she is not an
illiterate person to say that she does not know anything
about these aspects. She was working as Lecturer in
Hukkeri College for one year in the year 2015. Thus, she
is worldly wise.
21. When once it is brought to the knowledge of
petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent
person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed,
pending or not.
22. Furthermore, even after respondent has taken
contention that MFA No.101347/2015 is pending,
petitioner has not made any efforts to plead that by
suppressing pendency of said appeal or by suppressing the
stay order passed in said MFA, he married her. There is no
such averment either in the petition or in her affidavit
evidence; and she has not deposed so in her cross-
examination. Under these circumstances, when the
marriage of respondent with first wife is still subsisting,
respondent is not supposed to marry the petitioner.
23. Furthermore, only if this factum of second
marriage is suppressed and respondent married the
petitioner; then she is entitled for maintenance. But that is
not so in the present case.
24. Furthermore, the petitioner categorically
deposed that she was working in the year 2015. It is not
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
put forth by her that respondent made her to resign her
job and married her. Under these circumstances, definitely
petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from
respondent. Hence, considering these aspects, the Family
Court dismissed the petition.
25. In Badshah’s case cited supra, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as follows:
“A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 125 –
Maintenance under - claim of, by second wife -
Maintainability - Second marriage performed as per Hindu
rites, but during subsistence of first marriage of husband
- Contention of husband that such second marriage being
void under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, second wife not
entitled to maintenance as she was not his legally wedded
wife - Concealment of fact of earlier marriage from second
wife by husband - Effect of
- In view of the fact that husband had duped the
second wife by not revealing to her the fact of his earlier
marriage, held, husband cannot deny maintenance to her
in such a case - He cannot be permitted to take
advantage of his own wrong by raising the aforesaid
contention - Giving purposive construction to provisions of
S. 125 CrPC and applying mischief rule, held, at least for
the purpose of maintenance under S. 125 CrPC, said
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
woman would be treated as a legally wedded wife -
Judgments of Supreme Court in Yamunabai, (1988) 1 SCC
530 and Savitaben, (2005) 3 SCC 636 supporting the
contention of husband would apply only in those
circumstances where a woman marries a man with full
knowledge of subsistence of his first marriage - Family
and Personal Laws – Hindu Law - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, Ss. 5(i), 11 and 17”
26. In Monika’s case cited supra, the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad has held as follows:
“11. In the present case, the Family Court has recorded a
finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence, that the
revisionist-wife had no knowledge of the subsisting
marriage of the revisionist-husband and that the
revisionist-husband had fraudulently concealed the said
fact. No perversity or illegality in the said finding could be
demonstrated before this Court. Consequently, the
revisionist wife was rightly held entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding
the invalidity of the marriage under personal law.”
27. In both the aforesaid cases, the factum of first
marriage was concealed fradulently at the time of second
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14375
RPFC No. 100123 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020152432025
marriage by the husband. However, that is not the
situation in the present case, as discussed above.
28. As discussed earlier, there is no specific
contention by the petitioner regarding suppression of facts
either in the petition or in her affidavit evidence or in her
cross-examination. Hence, this Court holds that
interference on the order passed by the Family Court is
not required.
29. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
Revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 is dismissed .
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH/CT:VH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13