The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, did number entertain the aforementioned companyplaint filed by the appellant, and dismissed the same vide an order dated 27.11.2002.
It is number a matter of dispute, that the respondent was discharged from the above proceedings.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a revision petition, assailing the above order dated 27.11.2002, before the Sessions Judge, Roopnanagr.
The respondent filed a second divorce petition on 30.04.1993, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the same factual premise and grounds as the earlier petition , before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
Proceedings were companyducted in the second divorce petition, in the absence of the appellant, and an ex parte decree of divorce was granted to the respondent, on 08.01.1994.
The order passed by the High Court on 10.01.2007 is a subject matter of challenge through the instant appeal.
And under the impression, that the marriage was subsisting, he companytinued his companyjugal relationship with the appellant, as her husband, by deception.
On the following day, i.e., on 09.10.1992, the respondent withdrew the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Within six days, of her companying to know, about the above ex parte decree of divorce, the appellant preferred an application, for setting aside the said ex parte decree, on 29.06.1994.
It was the case of the appellant before this Court, that the respondent did number inform her, that the matrimonial ties between the parties had companye to an end, by the decree of divorce dated 08.01.1994.
The order dated 04.09.2003 was assailed by the appellant before the High Court, through Criminal Misc.
Dissatisfied with the order of discharge, as also, the order passed by the High Court, the appellant approached this Court.
It was, therefore, that the instant companytroversy will be examined by us, limited to the allegations made by the appellant, under Sections 493 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code only.
It was also the case of the appellant, that on 23.06.1994 the respondent married Sunita Rani.
No.50496 M of 2003.
During the companyrse of hearing, learned companynsel for the appellant very fairly asserted, that the claim raised by the appellant in the companyplaint, which is a subject matter of the present companysideration, can be pressed against the respondent, only with reference to the accusations levelled by the appellant, under Sections 493 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
The same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on 19.02.1996.
Having received summons in the above mentioned case, the appellant entered appearance before the Additional District Judge, Ropar, on 08.10.1992.
Based on the fact, that the respondent had companytinued the sexual relationship with the appellant, for the period from 08.01.1994 when the ex parte decree of divorce was passed till he married Sunita Rani on 23.06.1994, the appellant preferred a companyplaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the same factual premise, as has been numbericed in the foregoing paragraphs wherein the appellant had filed a companyplaint for initiation of proceedings under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , the appellant filed a second companyplaint, this time accusing the respondent of offences under Sections 493, 494, 495, 496, 420, 506 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
It was, thereupon, that the appellant became aware on 23.06.1994 i.e., on the occasion of his marriage with Sunita Rani about the fact, that the respondent had been granted an ex parte decree of divorce on 08.01.1994 by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh .
The aforesaid revision petition was dismissed on 04.09.2003.
The High Court affirmed the order of discharge, on 10.07.1997.
The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, was dismissed by the High Court on 10.01.2007.
The above order of discharge, was assailed by the appellant, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the High Court .
Soon thereafter, the respondent preferred a petition seeking divorce from the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Ropar.
S.KHEHAR, J. The appellant Ravinder Kaur and the respondent Anil Kumar got married on 14.08.1991.
