Crl. Misc. No. M-3731 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3731 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 14,2011 Baldev Singh and others ...................................................... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the complaint No.16-1 of 17.2.2005 titled as “Pareena v. Baldev Singh etc.” under Section 494/120-B of IPC (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha District Muktsar and order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar by which revision petition against order dated Crl. Misc. No. M-3731 of 2010 [ 2 ] 11.10.2007 was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Baldev Singh was married to the complainant Pareena about 22/23 years ago. Out of this wedlock, one minor child-Amrinder Singh was born. Baldev Singh got an ex-parte divorce decree against respondent No.2-Pareena (Manjit Kaur) on 9.7.1987 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, he got married again. As per the decision dated 15.12.1988 an application for maintenance was filed. Maintenance of Rs.200/- per month was ordered for the minor child and maintenance to the wife was denied. In the order, it has been observed that a divorce petition was filed on 2.6.1986 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the application for maintenance, an ex-parte divorce was granted in favour of the husband/petitioner. The divorce decree has become final between the parties and the wife was not held entitled for maintenance. The order granting maintenance to the son was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who dismissed the revision petition on 3.8.1990 (Annexure P4). All these orders have attained finality. Mr. Aman Dhir, counsel for the petitoner, states that a complaint has been initiated by the wife-Pareena (Manjit Kaur) under Section 494/120-B/34 IPC and vide order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) they have been summoned to face the trial by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha. The revision petition against this order has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, on 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-6). Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Padam Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2007(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 209wherein it has been held that if the second marriage takes place before Crl. Misc. No. M-3731 of 2010 [ 3 ] the ex-parte decree is set aside, the husband will not be guilty of bigamy. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint when respondent No.2 had the knowledge of ex-parte divorce even during the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 1988. The ex-parte divorce order has attained finality. The complaint which has been filed in the year 2005 is not maintainable on the ground of delay and is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Gurmohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has vehemently argued that respondent No.2 did not have the knowledge about the ex-parte divorce decree. He has referred to the divorce decree and contends that the name and address of respondent No.2 were wrong. On Court query that how a reference of the ex-parte divorce decree has been made in the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when the respondent No.2 had no knowledge of the same, learned counsel for respondent No.2 had no answer. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case, one thing is clear that respondent No.2 had knowledge about the ex-parte divorce decree when her application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided on 15.12.1988 and respondent No.2 was specifically denied the right of maintenance. She did not challenge this order by way of filing a revision. However, the husband filed a revision petition against this order and she contested the revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. After having accepted the order denying her maintenance and having the knowledge of the ex-parte divorce decree in the year 1988, she has moved an application under Section 494 IPC in the year 2005. Till that Crl. Misc. No. M-3731 of 2010 [ 4 ] time, the judgments have attained finality. In view of the above, the complaint No.16-1 of 17.2.2005 titled as “Pareena v. Baldev Singh etc.” under Section 494/120-B of IPC (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha District Muktsar and order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar are quashed. Resultantly, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. 14.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE