Revision petitioner challenged the trial Court order granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The High Court held the alleged statement before SDM regarding second marriage was inadmissible without oath and dismissal of revision allowed.
Revision dismissed, maintenance order affirmed, no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Civil Revision No.6928 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6928 of 2012(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : November 21, 2012
Shivraj Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Jaskaran alias Gopi and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
Present Mr. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
4000/- towards litigation expenses and a sum of 1500/- to his wife and a sum of ` 1000/- to his daughter towards interim maintenance invoking the provision under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2
Civil Revision No.6928 of 2012(O&M)
the husband and the wife ordered to pay litigation expenses and their interim maintenance as stated supra. The trial Court in fact rejected the contention of the Revision petitioner that the first respondent had already got married as per the statement given by her before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Giddherbaha as premature.
4000/towards litigation expenses and a sum of 1500/- towards monthly maintenance of the wife and a sum of ` 1000/- towards monthly maintenance of his daughter was awarded by the trial Court. Secondly, I find that the statement alleged to have been given by the 1st respondent under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be established during the course of trial. In my view, the statement recorded under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not on oath. It is not a case where the wife infact admits the second marriage in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 13 of the Hindu MarriageCivil Revision No.6928 of 2012(O&M) 3
Act for divorce or the proceedings initiated under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. The alleged statement given by the wife under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be established by the Revision Petitioner by examining the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Giddherbaha. Even otherwise if such a statement is disputed by the wife, much credence cannot be attached to such a statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without administering oath to the deponent.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
November 21, 2012 p.singh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in awarding litigation expenses and interim maintenance to the wife despite the husband's allegation of her second marriage.
Whether the statement alleged to be given by the wife under Section 97 of CrPC is conclusive evidence of her second marriage.
Whether admission of second marriage operates as a complete bar to claiming interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivraj Singh
Jaskaran alias Gopi
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court