Jharkhand High Court
Sukhwant Kaur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 16 of 2012
Sukhwant Kaur, wife of Navtej Singh, daughter of Kartar
Singh, resident of 67, Punjabi Refugee Colony, near
Gurudwara, Golmuri, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town
Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East.
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Navtej Singh, son of Jagat Singh Chhabra, resident of H.
Np. 3339, Section-22/D, P.O., P.S. and District-Chandigarh
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
25/16.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No.-2.
3. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-State.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that as per the case of the petitioner before the
learned court below, the marriage of the petitioner with the
opposite party No.-2 was solemnized on 28.08.2005 according to
Sikh Customs and Rites and she was thrown out of her
matrimonial home on 04.11.2005. Thereafter, opposite party
No.-2 (husband) solemnized another marriage on 15.11.2006
and also filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 120/2010 before the
Munsiff Court at Jamshedpur for a declaration that the
petitioner was not his wife. He submits that this fact regarding
filing of suit was brought on record by the opposite party No.-2
before the learned court below also in his show cause reply.
However, the said suit was dismissed vide order dated
03.11.2017 and this aspect of the matter has been brought on
record by filing a supplementary affidavit before this Court. He
further submits that in spite of repeated opportunities having
been granted to the opposite party No.-2 to file a reply to the
supplementary-affidavit and also the fact that the opposite
party No.-2 had also joined court proceedings during virtual
hearing of this matter, no reply has been filed and thus it is not
in dispute that the order dated 03.11.2017 dismissing the Title
Suit No. 120/2010 has attained finality. He submits that as the
opposite party No.-2 has already lost the suit, there can no
doubt that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite
party No.-2 is valid.
5. He also submit that earlier an order of maintenance was
passed by the learned court below which was subject-matter of
challenge in Cr. Revision No. 162/2009 which was disposed of
vide order dated 12.08.2010 and the matter was remanded back
to the learned court below for fresh decision and during the
pendency of the proceedings in the learned court below, the
opposite party No.-2 was directed to go on depositing Rs.
4,000/- before the learned court below on or by 10th of every
succeeding month and the petitioner was at liberty to withdraw
the said amount on furnishing security in any form to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court. The learned counsel
submits that the interim order of maintenance dated 12.08.2010
while disposing of Cr. Revision No. 162/2009, was never
complied with by the opposite party No.-2 and the petitioner
has faced huge financial difficulty on account of acts and
omissions of the opposite party No.-2.
6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned court below is ex-facie
perverse, in as much as, the learned court below has passed the
impugned by holding that the petitioner has not been able to
prove that she had taken divorce from her first husband in the
year 1982 from Gurudwara at Delhi and the marriage certificate
(Exhibit-1) filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
court below was held to be not genuine, although the witnesses
of the marriage including Head Granthi of Gurudwara who
has fully supported the fact that the marriage between the
petitioner and the opposite party No.-2 was solemnized by him.
Learned counsel further submits that the court at the stage of
petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is only required to prima
facie record finding of marriage and is not conferred with the
jurisdiction of finally taking a call about the legality or
otherwise of the marriage and there was enough material to
come to a prima-facie finding. He submits that in the aforesaid
circumstances and in view of the suit filed by the opposite
party No.-2 having been dismissed in the year 2017, the
impugned order passed by the learned court below cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
Arguments on behalf of the opposite party No.-2
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
No.-2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and
has submitted that the petitioner was already married and
accordingly, even it is assumed that the second marriage was
solemnized, the said cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of
law as the petitioner has not been able to prove her divorce
from her first husband. He also submits that in fact the
marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party No.-2 was
never solemnized and the impugned order is well reasoned
order and does not call for any interference. The learned
counsel has also submitted that so far as the dismissal of the
suit is concerned, the same was not on merit, but the same was
dismissed for default and accordingly has no bearing in the
matter.
8. However, during the course of argument, the learned
counsel does not dispute the fact that in spite of the fact having
been brought on record by the petitioner regarding dismissal of
the suit, he has neither received any instruction from the
opposite party No.-2 to file any reply nor he is aware as to
whether any steps were taken by the opposite party No.-2 in
connection with the said suit.
9. It is not in dispute that the repeated opportunities were
granted to the opposite party No.-2 to respond to the aforesaid
fact regarding dismissal of the suit vide order dated 03.11.2017.
It is also not in dispute that the opposite Party No.-2 had joined
online proceedings on various dates through his Mobile No.
7986656965.
Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-
State has also opposed the prayer and has supported the
submissions advanced on behalf of opposite party No.-2. She
has also stated that so far as the quantum of maintenance is
concerned, the same may not be decided by this Court and only
the legality and validity of the impugned order may be taken
into consideration.
11. Arguments on behalf of the parties are concluded.
12. Post this case on 03.12.2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
