IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.739 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision :16.2.2009 Niranjan Singh … Appellant Versus Gurdeep Kaur …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma, Present: Mr.Gurjeet Singh Bawa, Advocate for the appellant. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) CM No. 2122 C of 2009 Dismissed as withdrawn. RSA No.739 of 2009 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent challenging the decree of divorce to be null and void stands decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit on the plea that she was married with the appellant-defendant about 45 years ago at Village Bassian Tehsil Jagraon vide ceremony of Anand Karaj and after marriage, parties were living as husband and wife and cohabited their marriage at village Raisar, Punjab. The plaintiff gave birth to two children, namely, Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Kaur who are still alive. Paramjit Kaur daughter of the parties is stated to be residing at England while Amarjit Singh is living at village Raisar, Punjab. RSA No.739 of 2009 (O&M) The plaintiff is stated to be still residing at village Raisar, Punjab, as legally wedded wife of the defendant-respondent along with her son. She asserted that she never filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the defendant and the marriage of plaintiff with the defendant has never been dissolved by any decree of such kind. It was asserted that during the life time of plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellant brought a lady namely Ranjit Kaur aged about 25 years along with a male child and kept her illegally in the house. The plaintiff-respondent had to file a criminal complaint of adultery against the appellant-defendant. The case was contested wherein plea was taken by the defendant- appellant that decree of divorce was obtained by her. It was then, the plaintiff-respondent came to know about that decree of divorce, obtained by the appellant-respondent by misrepresentation, impersonation and by playing a fraud with the court by producing some other lady instead of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant by taking plea that divorce was obtained by plaintiff- respondent herself. He appeared and persuaded her not to take divorce but as she refused, he absented himself and was proceeded ex parte. It was also case of the plaintiff-respondent that not only plaintiff- respondent appeared in court, but in support of the petition, she also examined Gurbachan Singh as witness, who was said to be her 2 RSA No.739 of 2009 (O&M) brother. The plaintiff-respondent, however had denied any relationship with Gurbachan Singh. Learned courts below, on appreciation of evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that petition as well as power of attorney was not signed by the plaintiff- respondent. Therefore, it is held that the decree of divorce was obtained by appellant-defendant by fraud and misrepresentation. The suit stands decreed by learned courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal:- “Whether the impugned judgments and decree are outcome of reading of inadmissible evidence and ignoring the admissible evidence and thus perverse?” In support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by Haqiq Singh Mann, who was stated to be the counsel appearing for the plaintiff- respondent in the matrimonial case. However, the evidence of Shri Haqiq Singh Mann was not accepted by the learned courts below as in his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that neither the petition nor power of attorney was signed by the plaintiff- respondent in his presence. He categorically admitted that in fact, it was Gurbachan Singh who brought the papers duly signed. 3 RSA No.739 of 2009 (O&M) However, as there is no evidence on record to show that there was any relationship between Gurbachan Singh and the plaintiff-respondent and also in view of the admission that the petition and power of attorney were not signed by her which stood proved from the expert’s report, the courts below held that decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. It was not the plaintiff/respondent who obtained the decree but the appellant. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that courts below took into consideration inadmissible evidence i.e. news item, which was not proved on record, therefore, the judgments and decree cannot be sustainable in law. This plea is totally misconceived. The courts below, on the basis of evidence brought on record, have rightly come to the conclusion that the divorce was not obtained by the plaintiff- respondent as was sought to be pleaded by the defendant-appellant. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that application for additional evidence was wrongly rejected. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that by way of additional evidence, the appellant sought to produce on record the marriage certificate. This plea also cannot be accepted as the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the evidnce sought to be produced could not be said to be one which was not within the knowledge of the appellant/defendant when the evidence was led, 4 RSA No.739 of 2009 (O&M) furthermore, the evidence sought to be produced could not be said to be such an evidence, which could materially effect the decision of the case or was necessary for pronouncement of judgment. The learned Court thus rightly rejected the application for additional evidence. The substantial question of law framed does not arise in the appeal. Dismissed in limine. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] Judge 16.02.2009 sd 5