SARABJIT SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband has assailed the trial Court's order dated January 20, 1996, whereby the petition filed under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') has been allowed and the petitioner is ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month during the pendency of the petition and Rs. 800/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife.

(2.) The skeletal facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband filed a petition under S. 11 of the Act on the ground that respondent Charanjit Kaur was earlier married to one Kashmira Singh and when she was married to the petitioner on March 6, 1992, this marriage was subsisting and Kashmira Singh was alive. Hence respondent's marriage with the petitioner is void under S. 5(1) of the Act. The respondent-wife in her written statement admitted that earlier she was married to Kashmira Singh, but further averred that she got this earlier marriage dissolved through a Talaknama dated May 31, 1991, as per the custom prevalent in their Jat community. Thus, according to her, her first marriage was dissolved on May 31, 1991, as per their custom and, therefore, her marriage with the petitioner solemnised on March 6, 1992, cannot be treated as void. During the pendency of these annulment proceedings, the respondent-wife filed a petition under S. 24 of, the Act, which was allowed by the impugned order, as stated above.

(3.) The petitioner-husband's learned counsel valiantly argued that the wife has admitted in unequivocal terms that earlier she was married to one Kashmira Singh before she was married to the petitioner. Thus, according to him, she is not his legally wedded wife as her marriage with the petitioner is in violation of the mandatory provisions of S. 5(1) of the Act. His second submission is that as she is not his legally wedded wife, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under S. 24 of the Act. In support of his contentions he has relied on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530 : (AIR 1988 SC 644) and Manjeet Singh v. Parson Kaur, (1990) 2 Pun LR 97.