IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 5510 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th February, 2010. Smt. Pinki Petitioner through Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Versus Balraj Respondents through Mr. Anubhuti Walia, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby an application moved by the respondent – husband to get the signatures of the petitioner – wife compared on the affidavit Mark 'A', has been allowed. It appears that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for nullity of his marriage on the ground that the petitioner was already married to one Suresh Kumar son of Kanwar Singh, resident of Gopal Nagar, Bhiwani Road, Jind. Instead of leading positive evidence to prove the subsistence of the petitioner's alleged valid marriage with the said Suresh Kumar, the respondent appears to have relied upon an alleged affidavit given by the petitioner which has not been even admitted in evidence and is only a marked document. The said affidavit, therefore, can not be taken or read to be a piece of evidence for any purposes. The impugned order, thus, can not sustain in law on this count alone. However, it shall not preclude the respondent to lead evidence to get his marriage nullified on the grounds specified under the Act. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat is set aside. No costs. Dasti. February 17, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE