Jarnail Singh vs Uoi
2013 Latest Caselaw 1125 Del

$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                DECIDED ON: 06.03.2013


+                         W.P. (C) 5444/1998

      JARNAIL SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.

                          versus
      UOI                                                ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Archna Gaur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

1. The petitioner joined the CISF on 18.12.1976. On 17.2.1997, his wife Smt.Baljit Kaur submitted a complaint to the Office of the Deputy Commandant CISF Unit NFL Naya Nangal i.e. the place where he was working stating that he had contracted a second marriage with one Smt.Rani @ Harbans Kaur D/o Shri Balbir Singh and was not maintaining her i.e. Smt.Baljit Kaur. On 09.08.2011, the petition was dismissed in default; it was restored on 17.12.2012 after an application was preferred.

2. The learned counsel argued that the second marriage was contracted by the petitioner with the consent and even participation of the first wife. It was submitted that the purpose for contracting the second marriage was to have children.

WP (C) 5444/1998 Page 1

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has now settled his affairs with the first wife who had complained against him. He relies on the averments in the petition; he also relies upon the ruling of this Court in Ex. Constable Shiv Ram v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.981/2010, decided on 1.3.2011). In that case, the petitioner had contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. Apparently, even the first wife had got remarried. Later, the Court annulled the first wife's marriage and the second wife had complained against the petitioner. The Court, having regard to the entire conspectus of circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner appeared to have settled his affairs, directed his reinstatement.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though the petitioner has asserted that the first marriage was dissolved, no particulars of a divorce decree or any such order is forthcoming. She also relied upon the reply to the show cause notice and the other documents filed by the petitioner to say that such contention was never urged.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. Even though there are certain broad observations in Shiv Ram's case (supra), at the same time, the Court was conscious of the fact that in terms of Hindu Marriage Act, no weightage be given to divorce by custom or the settlement arrived at outside the provisions of the Act and contrary to it. The petitioner's contention is that even though he contracted the second marriage, it was with the consent of the first wife. As against this, the fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings were triggered on account of the complaint by the first wife herself who deposed in those proceedings. That the petitioner was able to arrive at some kind of settlement before the Lok Adalat as a

WP (C) 5444/1998 Page 2 result of which the first wife has been directed to be paid maintenance or monthly amounts, is in the opinion of the Court, not sufficient ground for it to conclude that in fact divorce had taken place. Likewise the petitioner's acquittal in criminal proceedings would be of no assistance to him. The charge levelled is clear, i.e., contracting the second marriage during the subsistence of the first. The petitioner has not denied it. Under these circumstances, the only relief that the petitioner can reasonably expected is in the event of his being able to satisfy the authorities that in fact a divorce has been or had been obtained at the relevant time or soon thereafter, in such an event, it is open to the petitioner to seek modification of the punishment; if the authorities are satisfied that the petitioner had settled his affairs, they may duly consider his application for modification of penalty from removal to compulsory retirement or some other milder punishment as the case warrants. Liberty in this regard is given to the petitioner, to establish these facts, through suitable representation.

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                     S. RAVINDRA BHAT
                                                           (JUDGE)



                                                          A.K. PATHAK
MARCH 06, 2013/vks/                                         (JUDGE)




WP (C) 5444/1998                                                           Page 3