SURENDER Vs. RAJBALA @ RAJKUMARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief factual background that emerges from the submissions of Mr. Vivek Khatri, counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner claims that a marriage between him and respondent no. 1 Rajbala @ Rajkumari was solemnized on 4.5.2002 at village Chapla Mori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and at the same time simultaneously marriage of real sister of the petitioner namely Darshna was solemnized with Vinod real brother of respondent no. 1. It is the claim of the petitioner that matrimonial dispute has ensued between the parties and out of this wedlock a female child namely Pariyanka was born to the couple who is minor as on date. It is the claim of the petitioner-husband that Rajbala vanished along with his minor daughter and subsequently it was revealed that she has undergone another marriage without taking divorce from him with respondent no. 2-Ugarsain Godara with the help of respondent no. 3 and 5.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is that during the course of illegitimate relations with respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 had given birth to a boy namely Kapil, also a minor. It is on account of this illegitimate relations, the petitioner claims that he moved the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar for registration of criminal case and when all his efforts failed to materialize, he filed a private complaint under sections 497, 494, 420, 468, 471, 109 IPC Annexure P/1. It is during the proceedings in that complaint at pre-summoning stage, the petitioner has moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for examination of Pariyanka and Kapil, both children to determine their parentage as well as to summon their school records. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned trial court through the impugned findings Annexure P/4 vide orders dated 18.11.2015 allowed the prayer of the petitioner to the extent of allowing examination of the school records but declined the prayer for conducting test on the two children to determine their parentage. It is against these findings, the present petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court seeking quashment of the orders passed by learned Magistrate Annexure P/4 whereby his application for additional evidence stood partly dismissed.

(3.) Heard Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner and perused the record.