FAO No. 1174 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1174 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.08.2011 Jagbir Singh .......... Appellant Versus Raj Kumari & another ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 29.9.2010, vide which it was ordered that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 stands dissolved. We have heard the counsel for the parties. As per the facts on record, marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 21.6.1995. At the time of marriage, the respondent was six years of age, whereas the age of the appellant was more than 14/15 years. Application to dissolve the marriage was filed by respondent No.1 by stating that despite repeated requests made by her, the appellant failed to take her to the matrimonial house and rather he had solemnized FAO No. 1174 of 2011 -2- second marriage with respondent No.2 on 7.7.2003. Upon notice, reply was filed. The appellant denied his marriage with respondent No.1. However, it was admitted that he had solemnized marriage with respondent No.2. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the marriage between petitioner and respondent is liable to be dissolved on the grounds mentioned in petition and the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed for? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition? OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief.” No other issue was claimed by any of the parties. Both the parties were given an ample opportunity to produce the evidence to prove their case. Respondent No.1 brought on record documentary as well as oral evidence. So was done by the appellant to prove his case. The trial Court taking note of the evidence on record found, as a matter of fact, that marriage was solemnized on 21.6.1995 between the appellant and the respondent. To say so reliance was placed upon the statements made by respondent No.1, who appeared in the witness box as PW-1, Neki Ram PW-2, Pirthi Singh PW-3 and Nanak PW-4. Reference was also made to the entries made in a Bahi, which was prepared at the time of solemnization of the marriage. Note was also taken of the letters Ex.P-2 to P-4 written by the appellant to respondent No.1. After noting the above evidence, it was observed as under :- FAO No. 1174 of 2011 -3- “37. From the perusal of the rival contentions of the parties, it is observed that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent no.1 was solemnized on 21.6.1995 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 has alleged that no marriage had taken place with the petitioner. It is to be noted here that in order to prove the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1, Neki Ram as PW2, Pirthi Singh as PW3 and Nanak as PW4. The petitioner has also placed on file copy of Bahi entries which prove the fact that Niyonda has been recorded in that Bahi entries. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.1 was enrolled in the army and after conducting enquiry on the application of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 had contracted second marriage with respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 was discharged from the army authorities. This fact also supports the version regarding the fact that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the respondent no.1. It is also to be noted here that the respondent no.1 entered into adultery with respondent no.2 because the second marriage of the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.2 was not valid and legal while subsisting the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. It is also to be noted here that respondent no.1 did not allow the Muklawa ceremony with the petitioner on one or the other pretext and this fact also caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. It is to be noted that respondent no.1 had written letters to the petitioner.” The evidence led by the appellant to say that the marriage was FAO No. 1174 of 2011 -4- not solemnized, was discarded by the learned trial Court being untrustworthy. After notice, this appeal was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to settle the dispute amicably. However, the efforts made by the Mediator have failed. It is virtually admitted by the appellant that after his marriage with respondent No.2, out of the wed lock three children were born. If that is so the ground for grant of divorce to respondent No. 1 is perfectly justified. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 09.08.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE