IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1245/2009 Date of Decision:6.3.2009. Kuldeep Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Raj Bala ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi,Advocate for the petitioner-husband. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-husband has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak whereby a sum of Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. 10.1.2005 as maintenance pendente lite has been ordered to be paid to the respondent-wife alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-; and order dated 4.3.2008 passed by Addl. Distt.Judge, Rohtak whereby his applications-one for review of the order dated 2.5.2005(Annexure P/1) and the other for allowing him to examine -Rajabala- wife (respondent herein) as his witness were declined. Petitioner further seeks quashing of the order dated 5.12.2008 whereby application for reviewing the order dated 2.5.2005, on the ground that respondent wife-Rajbala contracted a second marriage with one Balwan Singh, stood dismissed by the learned Addl.Distt.Judge, Rohtak. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. CR NO.1245/2009 -2- It is not disputed that in the divorce petition filed by the respondent wife-Rajbala an additional issue- Issue No.2-A to the following effect was framed on 15.9.2006:- “2-A. Whether petitioner Raj Bala has contracted a second marriage with Balwan son of Zile Singh? Onus on the Respondent”. Thereafter, the petitioner-husband has been given a number of opportunities to lead his evidence on this issue, the onus of which is upon him. On his failure to do so, ultimately his evidence was closed by the Court vide order dated 8.11.2008. In my opinion, the learned Courts below have rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner-husband for reviewing the orders on the alleged ground of respondent having contracted a second marriage, especially when a specific issue in that regard has already been framed. No ground to interfere is made out. Dismissed in limine. No costs. 6.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge