The high court has said that when one of the spouses seeks dissolution of the marriage on fault grounds in the pleadings, it is not open to such a spouse to contend that there is no marriage in view of admission in terms of section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Justice Krishna S Dixit said this while dismissing the petition filed by a teacher.
The petitioner-husband had challenged the order on maintenance. The petitioner, who is working at a government school in Dharwad district, sought for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated against him before a family court in Bengaluru by the respondent-woman. In his petition, the husband asserted that the respondent woman is not his legally wedded wife. According to him, the marriage registration certificate dated December 3, 1998 is a bogus document and hence there is no legal bond of marital relationship.
Also Read | Karnataka HC quashes bigamy case against woman
On the other hand, the wife opposed the petition and contended that in deciding claims for maintenance, a deeper examination of the marital status is not required, as observed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. It was further claimed that in 2003 itself, the husband had filed a petition before the family court in Hubballi seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. This was dismissed by default, for the non-appearance of the husband, on February 17, 2006.
Justice Krishna S Dixit noted that the petitioner has committed "suppressio veri and suggestio falsi", ie, misrepresentation and omission of material facts. The court pointed out that “Where there is a registered instrument, it raises a prima facie presumption of its validity.” The court further said that though the petitioner disputes the authenticity of the document, he has neither produced any other material rebutting such a presumption nor initiated proceedings in law for voiding the said certificate.
Justice Krishna S Dixit has also imposed Rs 25,000 as a cost upon the husband for blameworthy conduct, payable to the wife within 30 days. “An additional sum of Rs 200 per day of delay for the first thirty days and Rs 500 for the days following,” the court said.