Divorce granted by foreign courts is valid in India

Important points are made bold in Supreme Court judgment below.  The high court did not even look at the basic facts of divorce certificate’s date and alleged second marriage date.  No wonder there are more than 3 crore pending cases in Indian courts, when a high court does not seem to notice what a clerk can notice casually.

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:08 am (PST)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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
dismissed.

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 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
proceedings.

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

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)

………… ……… …J

(R. M. Lodha)