C.R No. 6655 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6655 of 2008 Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Jagbir Singh, ...... Petitioner. v. Raj Kumari and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2008 whereby the application of respondent No.1 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and an amount of Rs.1500/- was directed to be paid as interim maintenance to her along with Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Before proceeding further in the matter, I award Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1 as litigation expenses for this revision petition, which will be paid to her by the petitioner on or before the next date of hearing fixed C.R No. 6655 of 2008 ::2:: before the trial Court. On merits, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is disputing the very factum of marriage. He has further argued that this whole story has been cooked up because the sister of the alleged wife of the petitioner is married to his step brother and there is a dispute between the petitioner and his step brother, and that it is only to pressurize the petitioner that this litigation has started. I find that the trial Court has already taken care of this aspect by directing that in case respondent No.1 fails to establish the factum of marriage then she would be liable to refund the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses. The only flaw that can be pointed out is that despite the above direction, no provision has been made to ensure that in the event of failure of respondent No.1 to prove the factum of marriage, the petitioner would be able to recover the amount. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification that respondent No.1 will offer security before the trial Court so that in the event of her failure to establish the factum of marriage, the right of the petitioner to recover the amount does not become illusory. As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'