Divorce Abroad is Valid in India

Divorce abroad is Valid in India

Please read the Below judgement and see how unsrupulus members of the Family of the First Wife tried to Misuse the Laws to harass the innocent husband, they were almost successful in the evil intensions but for the good judgement and sensitivity of the Supreme court.

Members of the First Wife who were trying to falsely implicate the husband and his family members should be dealt with sternly and given an exemplary punishment so that nobody  else dare to misuse the laws to take revenge in Family disputes .

The Text of the Judgement is below .

Pashaura Singh vs State Of Punjab &Amp; Anr on 13 November, 2009



           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2009

           (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5910/2006)

Pashaura Singh …Appellant  Versus

State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondents   JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has  challenged the order
dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said
order, the petition  filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal  Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002  registered
at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498-A, 494,  506/34, IPC has been

3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada.  On May 7, 1997, she married
Pashaura Singh Sidhu – appellant – at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga,
Punjab. She  left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband  and,
accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998.  They stayed together for
few months and then relations  between them became strained. Kamaljeet,
thereafter, started  living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for
divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court  of British
Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his  favour and their marriage
stood dissolved with effect from  February 8, 2001. After the dissolution of
marriage, Pashaura  Singh came to India and remarried on January 2, 2002.
Pashaura Singh went back to Canada with his newly wedded  wife and both of them
have been residing there.

4. On January 21, 2002, Kamaljeet’s brother Balwant  Singh lodged a first
information report being F.I.R. No. 9 at  Police Station Sehna against Pashaura
Singh, Hakam Singh  (father of Pashaura Singh), Randhir Singh (brother of
Pashaura  Singh), Charanjit Kaur (wife of Randhir Singh) and Harbans  Kaur
(mother of Pashaura Singh) alleging therein that on May  7, 1997 he performed
his sister Kamaljeet Kaur’s marriage with    2

Pashaura Singh; that at the time of marriage, according to his  status, he gave
rupees four lacs in cash, gold jewelry, utensils,  almirah, fifty-one suits,
five bags etc. but the accused started  harassing his sister Kamaljeet Kaur and
threatened to kill her if  she did not bring car, electronic items etc. and that
he has now  come to know that Pashaura Singh has entered into second  marriage
in the first week of January, 2002. A case under  Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34,
IPC was registered against the  accused persons and it appears that the police
submitted  challan against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Barnala.

5. Randhir Singh, Charanjit Kaur (Rajinder Kaur),  Hakam Singh and Harbans Kaur
filed a petition under Section  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing the F.I.R.  No. 9 and criminal prosecution against them. Vide order
dated  April 29, 2004, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed  F.I.R.
No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered against them  and all subsequent

6. Pashaura Singh by a separate petition under  Section 482 of the Code prayed
for quashing F.I.R. No. 9/2002    3

and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him but, as  noticed above, the
High Court by its order dated May 24, 2006  dismissed his petition. The High
Court in its cryptic order, while  dismissing the petition, observed that
Pashaura Singh has  married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already
married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has  not been dissolved.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties  and upon careful perusal of
the materials placed before us, in  our judgment, the order of High Court cannot
be sustained for  more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court
gravely  erred in observing that Pashaura Singh married second time on  January
2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet  Kaur and the aforesaid
marriage has not been dissolved. The  certificate of divorce dated February 26,
2001 issued by the  New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia
shows that the marriage of Pashaura Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur  stood dissolved on
February 8, 2001. As a matter of fact, this  fact is noticed in the order dated
April 29, 2004 whereby the  High Court quashed F.I.R. No. 9 and the subsequent
criminal    4

proceedings against the family members of Pashaura Singh. In  the affidavit
filed by Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of  Police in response to the
petition filed by the appellant under  Section 482 before the High Court, it has
been admitted that  during investigation on March 14, 2002 Hakam Singh had
produced photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have  been issued by the
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The  observation of the High Court, thus,
that Pashaura Singh  married second time, although his marriage has not been
dissolved, is ex-facie contrary to record.

8. Section 494, IPC, inter-alia, requires the following  ingredients to be
satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have  contracted first marriage; (ii) he
must have married again; (iii)  the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv)
the spouse must  be living. Insofar as present case is concerned the appellant’s
marriage with Kamaljeet Kaur was not subsisting on January 2,  2002 when he is
said to have married second time. Pertinently  before the High Court, along with
reply, the complainant  Balwant Singh annexed copy of an affidavit filed by
Kamaljeet  Kaur which states that she was not aware of the divorce    5

proceedings filed by her husband Pashaura Singh. However,  from this affidavit,
it is apparent that her husband has obtained  a divorce judgment. There is
nothing in the affidavit that divorce  judgment has been stayed or set aside. On
the face of the  allegations made in the first information report, therefore,
ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC are not  satisfied.

9. Insofar as offence under Section 498-A is  concerned, the High Court in its
earlier order dated April 29,  2004 in the petition filed by the family members,
observed thus:   “I have perused the First Information Report registered
against the petitioners.

              The only allegation against the petitioner is that they started
harassing Kamaljeet Kaur Gill for not bringing more dowry. No demand of dowry
has been made by the petitioners, nor is there any specific entrustment, as
alleged in the First Information Report of dowry articles to the petitioners.
Parties have divorced each other, as per the order of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (Annexure P-1). Order is dated February 25, 2001. It is after
this divorce that Pishora Singh got married in India on January 2, 2002.”

10. Moreover, in the affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur referred  to hereinabove, there
is not a word about demand of dowry or  harassment on account of dowry by the
appellant.     6

11. We have no hesitation in holding that the first  information report lodged
by Balwant Singh is manifestly  attended with malafides and actuated with
ulterior motive. The  prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate,
rather it is  frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The
appellant has made out a case for quashing the first information  report and all
subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.

12. For the reasons indicated above, appeal is allowed  and order dated May 24,
2006 passed by the High court of  Punjab and Haryana is set aside. Resultantly,
F.I.R. No. 9  dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna and  all
subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed  and set aside.

13. The pending applications stand disposed of.    ……………………J

                                          (Tarun Chatterjee)


                                                 (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi,

November 13, 2009.

Link Here :



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: