LAXMAN Vs. P.G. GOURI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner who is the defendant -1 in O.S. No. 1049/2008 filed the above revision petition against the order dated 6.1.2012 on I.A. 4 under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, rejecting the application is before this Court.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant -1 is just and proper thereby the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the defendant -1 and sought for further declaration that the alleged marriage between defendants 1 and 2 dated 2.6.1993 alleged to have been registered before the Sub -Registrar, Dharwad during the subsistence of marriage of the plaintiff with defendant -1 is null and void and not binding on the marital status of the plaintiff and defendant -1 and all other rights and liabilities to be accrued to defendant -1, contending that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of defendant -1 and their marriage took place on 2.6.1984 at "Shiva Temple, near Rakkasa Koppa Dam, District Belgaum" and out of their wedlock two children were born and thereafter the plaintiff came to know about the matrimonial proceedings initiated between defendant -1 and Smt. Leela Mullatti for dissolution of marriage between them and defendant No. 1 has taken divorce with the said Leela Mullatti in the year 1990.

(3.) In the meantime, taking advantage of the innocence and sacrificing nature of the plaintiff when the defendant 1 had contacts with one Vinuta Bhat who was student of defendant -1 in Karnataka University, then the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 started. The defendant -1 initiated proceedings by filing O.S. No. 17/1994 and O.S. 109/1995. Both the suits were filed for injunction in respect of immovable properties. It is also contended in the plaint that she came to know about the illegal marriage with Vinuta Bhat by suppressing the material facts and the existed marital tie of defendant No. 1 has succeeded to get the registered documents of marriage with Vinuta Bhat on 2.6.1993 without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff Therefore, she alleges that the alleged marriage between defendants 1 and 2 has no legal sanctity and not binding on plaintiff, etc.