Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs Kartar Kaur And Ors on 10 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061595
CRR-1907-2019 (O&M) --1--
2024:PHHC:061595
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1907-2019 (O&M)
Decided on:-10.04.2024
Manjit Kaur ....Petitioner..
vs.
Kartar Kaur and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment
dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridabad, whereby an appeal filed against the judgment dated 10.12.1999
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, stood partly
allowed by convicting Kulvinder Singh (husband of the petitioner) while
acquitting other accused-respondents No.1 to 5. The present revision petition
is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 2313 days in filing the same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Manjit Kaur got
married with Kulvinder Singh on 30.09.1981 as per sikh rites and out of the
wedlock, one male child, namely, Pavitar Singh was born on 12.11.1982.
However, accused-respondent being greedy person demanded dowry and
harassed the petitioner-complainant and threw her out along with the child
from the matrimonial home and despite subsistence of first marriage,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061595
CRR-1907-2019 (O&M) --2--
Kulvinder Singh in connivance with the respondents entered into second
marriage with Charanjit Kaur @ Iqbal Kaur on 20.10.1985, by claiming
himself to be Jagjit Singh. Out of this wedlock a female child was born on
24.09.1986 in the house of Gurdayal Kaur (mother of Charanjit Kaur i.e.
second wife). Hence, the complaint.
3. On the basis of the evidence recorded, learned Trial Court vide
judgment/order dated 10.12.1999, acquitted the accused by giving them the
benefit of doubt.
4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal before the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was partly allowed, thereby
convicting Kulvinder Singh (husband of the petitioner), though acquitting
the other accused-respondents No.1 to 5.
5. While assailing the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that though, the appellate Court rightly convicted
Kulwinder Singh, however, it went wrong while acquitting the other
co-accused on the ground that they could have been under a bonafide belief
that there was a legal divorce between petitioner and Kulwinder Singh.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the paper book.
7. Admittedly, Kulvinder Singh performed second marriage during
the subsistence of the first marriage and the respondents were present at the
time of marriage, however, their presence merely cannot lead to the
presumption that they were aware about the bigamous nature of the
marriage, thus, the appellate Court and trial Court rightly acquitted the
respondents. Moreover, there is no direct evidence to show that the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061595
CRR-1907-2019 (O&M) --3--
respondents were aware about the status of previous marriage of Kulvinder
Singh with Manjit Kaur, thus, no presumption can be drawn against them on
account of their presence at the marriage ceremony that they clandestinely
helped Kulvinder Singh to enter into a second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage, besides it, the presence of relatives is
natural at a marriage ceremony and this cannot form the basis of their
conviction.
8. In view of the discussion made herein-above, finding no illegality
or perversity with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below
based on proper appreciation of evidence and the law applicable; there being
no overlooking of the material available on record, re-appreciation of the
evidence being impermissible, the present revision being devoid of merits is
thus dismissed.
10.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
3 of 3
