DHARMWATI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the point of admission of revision. It is admitted case that present revisionist Dharmwati had married to Sahendra Singh (respondent No. 2). It is also admitted fact that Sahendra Singh had filed petition of divorce through Suit No. 509 of 2003, Sahendra Singh v/s. Smt. Dharmwat, which was decreed ex parte on 7.12.2004. Thus, a decree of divorce had been passed for dissolution of marriage of revisionist Dharmwati and respondent No. 2 Sahendra Singh, which is still existing and is in force.

(2.) It is also admitted fact that after passing of the ex parte decree of divorce, present revisionist had filed as Complaint Case No. 397/2009, Smt. Dharmwati Devi v/s. Sahendra Singh, in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Civil Judge (J.D.) Deoband), Saharanpur. Said Magistrate has passed order dated 4.5.2009 for summoning the opposite party Sahendra Singh for the offence under Sec. 494. I.P.C., that is for the offence of bigamy. This summoning order was challenged by Sahendra Singh in Criminal Revision No. 254/2011, Sahendra Singh v/s. State of U.P., This revision was allowed by the judgment dated 10.8.2011 by Additional Sessions Judge. Court No. 7, Saharanpur, by which aforesaid summoning order dated 4.5.2009 was quashed. This impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 has been challenged in the present revision before this Court by Smt. Dharmwati alleging herself to be a wife of respondent No. 2 Sahendra Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that although ex parte decree of the divorce was passed by the court on 7.12.2004 but it was challenged in an Appeal No. 232/2010, Smt. Dharmwati Devi v/s. Sahendra Singh which is still pending, therefore, respondent No. 2 Sahendra should not have performed second marriage during pendency and till disposal of said appeal. He contended that since learned Magistrate had rightly summoned respondent for the offence under Sec. 494, I.P.C. relating to bigamy. He argued that in these circumstances, impugned order of learned revisional court should be quashed and revision should be allowed.