In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.1811 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:21.1.2009 Pritpal Singh .....Petitioner v. Parminder Kaur .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 25.2.1994 as per `Anand Karaj' ceremony. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul vide order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure-P.3) has awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure-P.4) has dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is living in adultery and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He has referred to the statement (Annexure-P.1) wherein it is submitted that the respondent herself admitted the fact of her living in adultery. Besides, it is submitted that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by an agreement/Talaqnama dated 18.7.2008. A photostat Cr. Misc.-M No.1811 of 2009 [3] copy in vernacular of the same has been handed over during the course of hearing. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in Mamta Rani v. Satish Kumar Gogia, 1995 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 270, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that in terms of the impugned orders (Annexures-P.3 and P.4) the learned Courts below have only granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month. The statement (Annexure-P.1) which Parminder Kaur is stated to have made before the Panchayat is liable to be proved in accordance with law. It is to be ascertained whether the statement was made by her and proved in accordance with the mode of proving documents. The agreement/ Talaqnama dated 18.7.2008, the vernacular of which has been handed over, is also to be proved and it is to be established whether divorce can be granted on writing of an agreement/Talaqnama in a case where the parties are admittedly governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In fact, according to the said agreement the parties will file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. No decree of dissolution of the marriage has been shown. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the marriage has been dissolved based on the agreement/Talaqnama is totally misconceived. In Mamta Rani's case (supra) the marriage between husband and wife, it was observed by the learned trial Magistrate that the wife and the minor child in the said case had voluntarily left the company of the respondent as was apparent from the agreement deed which had been put on record. As such there was no neglect or refusal on the part of the respondent therein to maintain them. Besides, in the said case it was agreed Cr. Misc.-M No.1811 of 2009 [3] between the parties that the marriage stood dissolved. However, in the present case not only has the agreement/Talaqnama to be produced but it has to be proved as to whether it has been voluntarily written in the said agreement that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would be filed. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*