Even after getting divorce, both of them had been living together as husband and wife.
The companyplainant had number been living with the appellant after the decree of divorce and they were number having physical relationship with each other.
The relationship of husband and wife between the appellant and respondent number2 still subsists and thus, companyplaint is maintainable.
M 29339 of 2009 OM passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called as Cr.
The instant case is required to be companysidered in the aforesaid factual backdrop.
The learned Magistrate issued the summons to the appellant on the same date.
However, the companyplainant Amandeep Kaur had alleged that she was induced by her husband to get divorce for settling in the United States and it was his intention to kick her out from the house.
On the companytrary, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent number2 has vehemently opposed the appeal companytending that decree of divorce is a nullity as it has been obtained by fraud.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to present case are as under That the appellant and respondent number 2 got married on 23.9.1998 at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites and from the said wedlock a son, namely, Gurarjit Singh was born on 5.10.1999.
Respondent number 2 alleged that during that period she had number been treated well by the appellant, thus, she had to take shelter in the house of her parents all her belongings including the dowry articles were kept by the appellant and his parents.
The allegation to the extent that they had been living together even after divorce were false and baseless and had been labelled only to harass the appellant.
In the said case, statements of appellant and respondent number 2 were recorded on 19.9.2007 and proceedings were adjourned for a period of more than six months to enable them to ponder over the issue.
P.C. for quashing the companyplaint dated 12.6.2009.
can be examined by the Magistrate Court itself.
Hence, this appeal.
The companyrt has to take the companyplaint on its face value and the allegations made in the companyplaint require adjudication on facts.
The said companyplaint was sent to SP, City I, Ludhiana for companyducting inquiry.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Thus, she prayed for justice.
They had visited several places together during this period.
The parties again appeared before the companyrt on 20.3.2008 on second motion and their statements were recorded and both of them affirmed that it was number possible for them to live together and, therefore, the learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2008 allowed the said petition and dissolved their marriage.
P.C. for quashing the companyplaint No.
He recorded statements of several neighbours and maid servant working in appellants house and submitted the report to the effect that as the husband and wife companyld number live together, they obtained the decree of divorce by mutual companysent.
So far as the companyplaint dated 12.6.2009 is companycerned, there had been allegation of mis behaviour against the appellant during the period of year 2005.
87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 filed by respondent number 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 hereinafter called the Act 2005 .
Both of them are employed and economically independent.
Legal opinion dated 2.6.2009 had been to the effect that the parties had taken divorce by mutual companysent due to their differences.
Before we proceed to determine the case on merit, it is desirable to highlight the admitted facts of the case Appellant and respondent number2 are highly qualified persons.
Respondent number 2 filed a companyplaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana against the appellant on 4.5.2009 under the provisions of the Act 2005 alleging that the decree of divorce obtained by them was a sham transaction.
It is also prayed that all the respondents be directed to restore to her all the dowry articles as detailed in Annexure A to C or in the alternative they be directed to pay to her a sum of Rs.22,95,000/ as the price of the dowry articles.
She has further given details how both of them have obtained decree of divorce by mutual companysent as they wanted to settle in United States and therefore, they had decided to get divorce on paper so that the appellant may go to U.S.A. and get American citizenship by negotiating a marriage of companyvenience with some U.S. citizen and divorce her and again re marry the companyplainant.
In the meanwhile, respondent number 2 filed Civil Suit on 17.7.2009 in the companyrt of Civil Judge Senior Division , Ludhiana, seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2008, i.e. decree of divorce, was null and void as it had been obtained by fraud.
Respondent number 2 subsequently filed a companyplaint under the Act 2005 on 12.6.2009.
However, he suggested to seek legal opinion in the matter.
The said suit is still pending.
She was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
The petition is allowed.
She further alleged that even after decree of divorce she had been living with the appellant till 7.2.2009 and companytinued companyhabitation with him.
The child had been forcibly snatched from her by the appellant.
The appellant, being aggrieved of the order of Ld.
Both of them got married in year 1998 and had been blessed with a son in year 1999.
The High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2010 dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
The companyplaint dated 4.5.2009 filed by respondent number 2 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, City I, Ludhiana.
The said SP, City I companyducted the full fledged inquiry and submitted the report on 4.5.2009 to the effect that the parties had been living separately after divorce and, numbercase was made out against the present appellant.
Respondent number 2 also filed application dated 17.12.2009 under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for grant of custody and guardianship of the minor child Gurarjit Singh and the same is pending for companysideration before the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division , Ludhiana.
The marriage between the petitioners is henceforth declared dissolved VI.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
More so, the reliefs claimed by the respondent number 2 in the civil suit for declaring the decree of divorce as null and void and in another suit for getting the custody of the child referred to hereinabove, would meet her requirements.
D and respondent number2 has registered herself for Ph.D. They are companypetent to understand the companyplications of law and other facts prevailing in the case.
168 of 19.9.2007 before the District Judge, Ludhiana under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hereinafter called the Act 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual companysent.
There was numbercomplaint by respondent number2 against the appellant of any cruelty, demand of dowry etc.
The appellant is Ph.
Accordingly, legal opinion dated 2.6.2009 was sought, wherein it was opined that the parties had obtained the divorce decree by mutual companysent and the allegations made by respondent number 2 against the appellant were false and baseless and the purpose of filing the companyplaint was only to harass the appellant.
It was further suggested in the report that legal opinion may also be taken.
It is also prayed that the respondent number1 be directed to pay to her a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month by way of rent of the premises to be hired by her at Ludhiana for her residence.
The issue of limitation etc.
The instant appeal reveals a very sorry state of affair where the wife files a criminal companyplaint before the companypetent companyrt to initiate criminal proceedings against her husband alleging that they had obtained decree of divorce by playing fraud upon the companyrt without realising that in such a fact situation she herself would be an accomplice in the crime and equally responsible for the offence.
The decree of divorce has been obtained under Section 13 B of the Act 1955.
However, the husband stated that she had been paid Rs.3,00,000/ in the companyrt by draft and Rs.27,00,000/ in cash for which the husband Inderjit Singh Grewal had entered into an agreement to sell his ancestral property.
We are living separately since 23.9.2005.
More so, the appeal raises a substantial question of law as to whether the judgment and decree of a companypetent Civil Court can be declared null and void in companylateral proceedings, that too, criminal proceedings.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 9.8.2010 in Criminal Misc.
Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Appellant is an Assistant Professor and respondent number 2 is a Lecturer.
The learned District Judge, Ludhiana granted the decree of divorce dated 20.3.2008 observing as under They have settled all their disputes regarding dowry articles, past and future alimonyThey are living separately from each other since 23.9.2005The petitioners have number been able to reconcileThe petitioners have settled all their disputes regarding dowry, stridhan and past and future permanent alimonyThe custody of the son of the petitioners is handed over to Inderjit Singh Grewal by Amandeep Kaur.
Respondent number2 was examined by the companyrt on first motion on 19.9.2007 wherein she stated, inter alia, as under We are living separately from each other since 23.9.2005.
before getting the decree of divorce dated 20.3.2008 by mutual companysent.
The parties to the marriage companyld number pull on well together because of temperamental differences and decided to get divorce and, therefore, filed HMA Case No.
Respondent number 2 on 11.2.2010 also lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 498 A, 376, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called IPC against the appellant and his mother and sister.
