-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 336 of 1988. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 16, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 336 of 1988. Surinder Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Vasakha Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg,Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Surinder Kaur (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby her suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. Surinder Kaur (plaintiff-appellant) and Vasakha Singh -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 336 of 1988. (defendant-respondent) had married in the year 1974 and out of this wed-lock a son was born, who was residing with the plaintiff- appellant. Thereafter, relations between the parties having strained, they sought mutual divorce and divorce deed dated 26.7.1979 was entered into between them with the intervention of the friends and relations. As alleged by the plaintiff, the parties being Ramgarhias of Punjab by Caste, were bound by the custom for breaking the marital ties by which divorce was given by mutual consent. Thereafter, the defendant-respondent solemnized a second marriage and had two children out of his second marriage. The plaintiff claimed that despite that the defendant-respondent started alleging himself to be the husband of the plaintiff without any legal right. She accordingly filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that marital ties between the plaintiff and defendant stood dissolved and there did not exist any relationship of husband and wife between the parties under the custom prevailing amongst them. Permanent injunction had also been sought by the plaintiff as a consequential relief restraining the defendant for ever from claiming the plaintiff as his duly wedded wife. In the reply filed by the defendant-respondent in the suit, he admitted the factum of his marriage with the plaintiff and further admitted that their marriage had been dissolved vide divorce deed dated 26.7.1979. He also admitted the fact of his second marriage. However, he denied that he ever claimed the plaintiff his wife after 26.7.1979. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 336 of 1988. pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff failed to prove any cause of action for filing the instant suit. There was a valid dispute between the parties by means of a written divorce deed dated 26.7.1979, which fact was admitted by the defendant in his written statement to the suit. Under the circumstances, the civil Court could not grant the declaration as claimed by the plaintiff. Nothing could be brought on record by the plaintiff that the defendant ever tried to claim himself to be the husband of the plaintiff after 26.7.1979 or took recourse to any proceedings for bringing back the plaintiff to his house as his wife. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 16, 2011. JUDGE ak