Karnataka HC fines man for calling marriage certificate fake after filing for divorce

A man from Dharward district in Karnataka filed a divorce petition in which he argued that the marriage certificate was forged. The High Court declared his claim untenable and directed him to pay Rs 25,000 fine within 30 days, failing which another Rs 200 fine per day should be paid after 30 days and Rs 500 per day thereafter.

Bengaluru (Karnataka) : The Karnataka High Court fined Rs 25,000 on a man who argued that the marriage registration certificate was fake to avoid paying maintenance expenses to his wife even though he had filed an application for divorce in the family court. The order was passed by a bench headed by Justice Krishna S Dixit who heard a petition filed by SN Doddamane of Kundagola taluk of Dharwad district.

The HC directed that if the fine of Rs 25,000 is not paid within 30 days, then he will have to pay Rs 200 more fine per day and Rs 500 per day if the fine is not paid within the next 30 days. The court observed that once the petition for divorce is filed, the marriage registration certificate cannot be said to be fake. In this case, the petitioner was lying by concealing the truth, it said.

Thus, a declaration of non-marriage cannot be made under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the court said and added that this behavior of the petitioner was defective and the penalty was being imposed.

Petitioner has marriage registration certificate but raised doubts about its authenticity. Although there is a record, he questioned its authenticity. The contention of the petitioner cannot be rejected as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, they have failed to provide the necessary evidence in this regard. Therefore, the court said that the marriage registration certificate cannot be declared void.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage registration certificate dated 3rd December, 1998, was a forged document. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent (husband and wife) was not legally binding. Thus, the trial court sought to set aside the order granting maintenance expenses to the wife.

The Supreme Court said that there was no need for the counsel for the respondent wife to examine the matrimonial relationship in depth in the maintenance cases. Also, the petitioner-husband have applied for divorce in the family court of Hubli. This application was dismissed. It has not been challenged in the court again. He challenged only the order of the trial court directing him to pay maintenance expenses.