KIRAN KAUR Vs. JAGIR SINGH BAMRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moga, whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short "the Act") for declaration of marriage between the parties as illegal, null and void, was allowed. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that the marriage of the respondent with Rajwant Kaur was solemnized on 5.5.1991 according to Anand Karaj ceremony. Out of the said wedlock, three children, namely, Harmandeep Singh, Jarmanjit Singh and Arjan Singh were born. Relation between Jagir Singh Bamrah and Rajwant Kaur and their sons were very cordial. In the month of April, 2009, the appellant and her sister came to the respondent's shop and purchased furniture worth Rs. 32,000/- and paid only Rs. 16,000/- to the respondent and promised to pay the balance amount in near future. However, the respondent refused to oblige them but on his friend's guarantee, he agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- within one month which they did not pay inspite of twice visit of the respondent to the house of the appellant. The appellant developed illicit relations with the respondent. On 28.10.2009, when the respondent went to the house of the appellant, her family members forced him to solemnize marriage with the appellant as she had conceived from his loins otherwise he would be eliminated. The respondent saved his life by fleeing from there and came back to Zira and went to the house of his in-laws. On 29.10.2009, when the respondent along with his wife and other members was present in his in laws house, the appellant and her family members came there in a Tata Sumo Taxi, picked up the respondent and by putting him in the said vehicle fled away. Rajwant Kaur and others chased them but in vain. On the next day, i.e., 30.10.2009, the appellant and her family members took the respondent to a Gurudwara in Sector 21-B, Chandigarh and got performed the marriage between the parties. They also obtained the signatures of the respondent on blank forms, papers, stamp papers and registered in connivance with Shri Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate. In the month of November, 2009, the respondent came to know about the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by this Court in CRM No. 56511 of 2009 and CRM-M-31224 of 2009 whereby the appellant and respondent were provided security but the respondent refused to take security as he had not filed any petition. Thereafter, the appellant moved applications against the respondent which were found to be false and the proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was ordered to be initiated against the appellant. The respondent also moved various applications for taking action against the appellant but of no use. On 24.4.2012, he filed a complaint under Sections 496/452/419/365/340/295-A/182/34 IPC which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moga. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for declaring the marriage between the parties as illegal, null and void. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.10.2009 by way of Anand Karaj at Gurudwara Sir Nirankari Darbar (Rawalpindi), Sector 21-B, Chandigarh. It was further pleaded that before the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent was unmarried and with his own will got changed the name of the appellant Kiran Kaur to Rajwant Kaur and got prepared all the documents in this regard. It was further pleaded that the appellant and the respondent approached this Court for protection under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. The respondent controverted the averments made in the written statement by filing replication. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(2.) The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties decided issues No. 1 and 2 together being interconnected in favour of the respondent holding that the marriage between the parties was illegal, null and void and the respondent was entitled to a decree of declaration by declaring his marriage with the appellant as nullity. Issue No. 3 was decided against the respondent holding the petition to be maintainable. Issues No. 4 and 5 were decided against the respondent as not pressed. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013 allowed the petition and passed a decree declaring the marriage between the parties as illegal, null and void. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court was in error in declaring the marriage between the parties as nullity whereas the respondent-husband was taking advantage of his own wrong. It was urged that in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the husband was not entitled to declaration that the marriage was void. In fact, the husband had contracted second marriage on the basis of which he had sought declaration that the marriage with the appellant was void. Support was drawn from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanyogata Devi v. Lalit Kumar Khurana, 1994 107 PunLR 412.