Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1372 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh v. Inderjit Kaur

2002-12-11

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the husband, against the dismissal of the petition under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by him against the wife, seeking annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity. 2. The facts in brief are that initially Jasbir Singh (husband) had filed the petition under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity, against respondent-wife Smt. Inderjit Kaur. It was alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 1-3-1987. It was alleged that the petitioner-husband had married the respondent-wife due to fraud committed upon him, as he was told by her father that she was unmarried and even the respondent had stated that she was unmarried. It was alleged that on 14-4-1987, the petitioner-husband came to know that the respondent-wife was already married to one Lachhman Singh and she had been divorced by Lachhman Singh. It was alleged that when the petitioner confronted the respondent with this fact, after some hesitation, she accepted the truth and left the house on the next day i.e. 15-4-1987. It was alleged that if the fraud had not been committed upon him that the respondent was unmarried, the petitioner would not have married the respondent. It was alleged that the marriage between the parties was the result of fraud, committed by the respondent and her parents and as such the marriage was required to be annulled. In the written statement filed by the respondent-wife, it was alleged that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner and his parents and other relatives that the respondent was the previously divorced wife of Lachhman Singh. It was alleged that the father of the petitioner namely Kehar Singh had visited the village of the respondent about 17 days prior to the marriage, accompanied by the petitioner and one Kashmir Singh (brother-in-law of the respondent) and at that time the dowry articles of the first marriage, which were returned by the previous husband, were shown to them. It was alleged that the father of the petitioner namely Kehar Singh had visited the village of the respondent about 17 days prior to the marriage, accompanied by the petitioner and one Kashmir Singh (brother-in-law of the respondent) and at that time the dowry articles of the first marriage, which were returned by the previous husband, were shown to them. It was alleged that the factum about the previous divorce was told to the petitioner and his family members before the marriage and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner and his family that the respondent was a divorcee, inasmuch as two sisters of the respondent were already married in village Amama Nagar (village of the petitioner-husband). It was alleged that all the family members of the petitioner had agreed to the marriage with the respondent. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, various dowry articles, which were returned to the respondent after divorce with the previous husband, were given along with other presents and gifts. It was alleged that the petitioner had sent the respondent to her house to bring more money from her parents or to sell the land in her name and when she declined, she was thrown out of the house by the petitioner when she was pregnant and that the respondent was not allowed to enter the house, when efforts were made in this regard, personally and through the Panchayat. 3. Subsequently, when the evidence of both the sides had been recorded and the case was at the stage of arguments, application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was filed by the petitioner-husband, seeking the amendment of the petition so as to plead that his marriage be annulled under Sec. 11 of the Act, inasmuch as at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, the respondent was already the wife of Lachhman Singh and was not divorced by him in accordance with law. The said application was contested by the respondent-wife. Vide order dated 3-8-1988, the learned trial Court allowed the amendment, so as to make it a petition under Sec. 11 of the Act, instead of a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act. The said application was contested by the respondent-wife. Vide order dated 3-8-1988, the learned trial Court allowed the amendment, so as to make it a petition under Sec. 11 of the Act, instead of a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act. In the reply to the amended petition under Sec. 11 of the Act, it was alleged by the respondent-wife that the respondent was a divorcee at the time of her marriage with the petitioner and the said divorce had taken place as per the custom prevailing in the family of the respondent and her previous husband as well as in the family and brotherhood of the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had verified about the previous marriage and the divorce of the respondent from the previous husband and the petitioner had also accepted the factum of customary divorce of the respondent from her previous husband. It was alleged that the writing of the customary divorce was also seen by the petitioner and the petitioner had married the respondent, treating the respondent as a divorcee. It was alleged that the petitioner was estopped from treating the respondent as already married and not a divorcee, at the time of her marriage with the petitioner. It was alleged that such a customary divorce was well known among Jat Sikhs, in the area of the parties, in fact throughout undivided Punjab. It was alleged that in fact the marriage between Lachman Singh and the respondent had come to an end by a customay divorce and a writing to that effect was also executed. 4. After hearing the both sides and after perusing the record, the learned Additional District Judge found that no fraud was committed upon the petitioner, at the time of his marriage with the respondent. It was also found that at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, the respondent was a divorcee from her previous marriage with Lachman Singh, under custom, which was prevalent amongst the Sikh-Jats. Resultantly, the petition for nullity of marriage was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-husband filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Resultantly, the petition for nullity of marriage was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-husband filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. It has been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that the trial Court had erred in law in holding that there was a custom regarding divorce amongst Sikh-Jats and that the respondent had obtained a customary divorce from her previous husband, Lachman Singh before her marriage with the petitioner. It was submitted that the custom had to be pleaded and proved and in the present case the respondent had failed to plead and prove the custom. Reliance has been placed on Inder Singh V/s. S. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 98 (Full Bench). 8. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. As referred to above, the appellant-husband had previously filed the petition under Sec. 12 of the Act, seeking annulment of the marriage by decree of nullity on the ground that at the time of his marriage with the respondent-wife, they were not informed that the respondent was already married to one Lachhman Singh and that she had been divorced by Lachhman Singh. In the written reply filed by respondent, it was alleged that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner and his parents and family members that the respondent-wife was previously divorced wife of Lachhman Singh and that no fraud was played upon the petitioner. Issues were framed on 1-2-1988, including issue No. 1, as to whether the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner was brought about by fraud (on the ground that the respondent-wife was unmarried), while later on it turned out that she was already married to one Lachhman Singh and that she was a divorcee. Issues were framed on 1-2-1988, including issue No. 1, as to whether the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner was brought about by fraud (on the ground that the respondent-wife was unmarried), while later on it turned out that she was already married to one Lachhman Singh and that she was a divorcee. Both the parties led evidence and the case was at the stage of the arguments when the petitioner-husband got the petition converted from Sec. 12 of the Act to Sec. 11 of the Act, by alleging that since respondent was married to one Lachhman Singh and no divorce in accordance with law had taken place between the respondent and Lachhman Singh, the marriage of respondent with the petitioner was a nullity. Thereafter, additional issues were framed on 7-12-1988, regarding the divorce between respondent and Lachhman Singh and about the existence of custom regarding divorce, between the parties. Thereafter, further evidence was led by the parties. Thereafter, after hearing both sides, learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband, seeking annulment of marriage, holding that divorce had taken place between respondent and Lachhman Singh, as per custom, which was prevalent amongst the Jat Sikhs, to which the parties belonged. 9. In AIR 1978 P&H 98 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, it has been held that a party relying upon a particular custom is called upon to allege and to prove that custom. It was further held that entries in a Riwaj-e-am, which pertain to a special custom applicable to a locality or a class of persons, should also be presumed to be correct unless rebutted. In the present case, as referred to above, the respondent-wife had specifically pleaded in the written statement to the amended petition that she was a divorcee from Lachhman Singh and that the said divorce had taken place as per custom prevailing in the family of respondent and her previous husband, as well as in the family and brotherhood of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner had also accepted the factum of customary divorce of the respondent from her previous husband and the writing of the customary divorce was also seen by the petitioner and the petitioner had married the respondent, treating the respondent as a divorcee. It was further alleged that the petitioner had also accepted the factum of customary divorce of the respondent from her previous husband and the writing of the customary divorce was also seen by the petitioner and the petitioner had married the respondent, treating the respondent as a divorcee. It was alleged that the petitioner was estopped from treating the respondent as married and not as divorcee, at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, because the petitioner himself had treated the respondent as divorcee, after looking and going through the customary divorce proceedings and had married the respondent treating her as divorcee. In the replication filed by the petitioner-husband, it was alleged that after marriage, the petitioner had come to know that the respondent was a divorcee. It was further alleged that afterwards he came to know, during her statement in the Court, that actually no divorce had taken place and that her marriage with previous husband namely Lachhman Singh was still subsisting. It was alleged that there was no custom of divorce among the parties and no document of divorce was shown to him. 10. When Jasbir Singh-petitioner had appeared in the witness box as AW-1, on 25-5-1988 (before the amendment of the petition), he had stated that he was married to the respondent on 1-3-1987 and at that time, he was told that she was unmarried. He deposed that on 14-4-1987, he came to know from Lachhman Singh that previously she was his wife. During cross-examination, he stated that he had told his counsel that he was told by Lachhman Singh on 14-4-1987 that previously Inderjit Kaur respondent was his wife. He was confronted with the petition, where this fact was not recorded. He stated that he was landless whereas 4 killas of land fell to the share of respondent from the land of her father. He denied the suggestion that at the time of his marriage with the respondent, he was told about the earlier marriage of respondent with Lachhman Singh or that he had accepted her with his eyes open. He stated that prior to 14-4-1987, he had not come to know that the respondent was earlier married. He denied the suggestion that he was aware about the previous marriage and divorce of the respondent with Lachhman Singh. He admitted that the father of the respondent was dead. He stated that prior to 14-4-1987, he had not come to know that the respondent was earlier married. He denied the suggestion that he was aware about the previous marriage and divorce of the respondent with Lachhman Singh. He admitted that the father of the respondent was dead. Kehar Singh, father of the petitioner, appeared in the witness box as AW-3. He deposed that when Karnail Singh came to his house and represented that he was father of Inderjit Kaur (later on, he came to know that he was her uncle) and stated that he was in search of suitable match for his daughter, Inderjit Kaur and that Jasbir Singh was a suitable match and that he (Kehar Singh, father of the petitioner) thanked his stars that somebody had come for his son, for the hand of his daughter. He further deposed that at that time, Karnail Singh, represented that the girl was unmarried. He further stated that later on, he came to know about the fact that Inderjit Kaur was a divorcee, from her previous marriage. He stated that he did not know as to when father of the respondent had died, but he had died long before marriage. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was told about first marriage and also of the divorce of the respondent with the previous husband. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner had deserted the respondent because she did not agree to sell her agricultural land and to give money to them. 11. Smt. Inderjit Kaur, respondent, appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and deposed that at the time when the talks for marriage were going on between her and the petitioner, it was disclosed that she was a divorcee and the alliance was accepted by the petitioner and his parents, knowing fully well that she was earlier married and then divorced. During cross-examination, she stated that her divorce with the previous husband was by way of a writing and that she could produce that writing. RW-2, Kashmir Singh, brother-in-law of the respondent, deposed that he was the mediator between the petitioner and respondent. He deposed that he had told the fact of the previous marriage and divorce of the respondent, to the petitioner before the marriage. RW-2, Kashmir Singh, brother-in-law of the respondent, deposed that he was the mediator between the petitioner and respondent. He deposed that he had told the fact of the previous marriage and divorce of the respondent, to the petitioner before the marriage. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Karnail Singh had come to negotiate marriage of Inderjit Kaur with Jasbir Singh, petitioner or that he had not disclosed that Inderjit Kaur was previously married and that she was divorced. 12. After the petition was amended, Jasbir Singh-petitioner again appeared in the witness box as AW-1 and deposed that after about 11/2 months of the marriage, he came to know that the respondent was previously married to Lachhman Singh. He deposed that during the proceedings in this case, he came to know that the respondent had not been divorced by her previous husband, Lachhman Singh. He deposed that he was a Jat and they were governed by Hindu Law and there was no custom of divorce in their family. He stated that similarly Lachhman Singh was a Jat and follows Hindu Law. During cross-examination, he stated that he was a Jat Sikh. He stated that one person from the side of Lachhman Singh and not Lachhman Singh had met him and he did not know the name of that person. He stated that he had not gone to Lachhman Singh to ascertain the true facts, regarding the marriage of respondent with Lachhman Singh. He stated that since he already knew about the marriage of Inderjit Kaur, he did not go to anyone to inquire about the factum of marriage or divorce. He denied the suggestion that among Jat Sikhs there is a custom of dissolution of marriage or that custom of divorce in Panchayat is permissible under the agricultural custom of Punjab. He also denied the suggestion that Lachhman Singh himself had met him and had told him about the repudiation and dissolution of marriage and also about the writing of divorce. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to inquire about it as he felt satisfied after seeing the writing. 13. Smt. Inderjit Kaur, respondent, also again appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and stated that she was married to Lachhman Singh, prior to her marriage with Jasbir Singh, petitioner and that she was divorced by Lachhman Singh. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to inquire about it as he felt satisfied after seeing the writing. 13. Smt. Inderjit Kaur, respondent, also again appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and stated that she was married to Lachhman Singh, prior to her marriage with Jasbir Singh, petitioner and that she was divorced by Lachhman Singh. She deposed that writing about divorce was executed between them and proved the same as Ex. R2. She deposed that there was a custom of divorce under the customary law in their brotherhood as well as in District Sangrur. She deposed that document Ex. R2 was shown to Jasbir Singh and after admitting it to be correct, he had married her. She deposed that there was general practice of divorce under customary law in their brotherhood and their District. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the writing Ex. R2 was not shown to the petitioner before marriage. She stated that Lachhman Singh belonged to village Mehlan, District Sangrur, but she did not know his Gotra. She deposed that she was a Jat Sikh and belongs to Village Kheri Jattan. She deposed that a customary divorce had taken place between Jagir Singhs daughter and her husband and that said Jagir Singh belonged to Bhunerheri, District Sangrur. She denied the suggestion that there was no custom of divorce prevalent in their brotherhood or District Sangrur. 14. Respondent also examined aforesaid Jagir Singh of Village Bhunerheri as RW-2. He deposed that he belonged to Jat Sikh family and that there was a custom about customary divorce in their brotherhood and District Sangrur. He deposed that his daughter Satwant Kaur, was divorced through customary divorce prevalent in their District. He deposed that he had brought the original deed of customary divorce and proved the photocopy thereof as Ex. RW-3. He deposed that after the customary divorce, he had remarried his daughter and similarly the previous husband of her daughter, Satwant Kaur had also re-married. He deposed that this customary divorce is prevalent in their brotherhood and in their District. During cross-examination, he stated that his sub-cast is Bhullar. He stated that he did not know the Gotra of respondent. He denied the suggestion that no customary divorce is prevalent in District Sangrur. The respondent also examined Kashmir Singh as RW-3. He deposed that he was mediator of this marriage between the parties. During cross-examination, he stated that his sub-cast is Bhullar. He stated that he did not know the Gotra of respondent. He denied the suggestion that no customary divorce is prevalent in District Sangrur. The respondent also examined Kashmir Singh as RW-3. He deposed that he was mediator of this marriage between the parties. He deposed that prior to this marriage, respondent was married to Lachhman Singh of Village Mehlan, District Sangrur. He deposed that said marriage was dissolved by customary divorce. He stated that there was a custom prevalent in their brotherhood about customary divorce. He further deposed that writing Ex. R2 regarding customary divorce between respondent and Lachhman Singh was shown to the petitioner and his parents before marriage, and after going through the document Ex. R2, Jasbir Singh, petitioner had agreed to his marriage with the respondent. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that writing Ex. R2 was not shown to the petitioner or that the factum about the previous marriage was not told to him. He stated that his Gotra is Hundal, while the Gotra of respondent is Billing, but he did not know the Gotra of Jasbir Singh. He stated that there had been many customary divorces in Billing Gotra, but he could not give name of anyone of them. He denied the suggestion that there had not been any customary divorce in Billing Gotra. RW-4 Mohinder Singh, of Village Beer Kalan, District Sangrur, deposed that he was Sarpanch of the Village and is a Jat Sikh by caste. He deposed that there is custom of customary divorce between the parties with the consent of the parties, prevalent in their brotherhood as well as in their District. He identified his signatures on the writing Ex. R2 and deposed that this was the prevalent mode of divorce in their brotherhood and their District. During cross-examination, he stated that he was a Mann Jat but he did not know the Gotra of Lachhman Singh, who belonged to village Mehlan. He stated that his village was at a distance of about 23 kilometres from village Mehlan Kalan. He denied the suggestion that there was no such custom as customary divorce in Sikh Jat community of District Sangrur. Nachhatar Singh, Sarpanch of Village Isra, District Sangrur appeared as RW-5 and deposed that he was a Jat Sikh and his sub-caste was Billing. He denied the suggestion that there was no such custom as customary divorce in Sikh Jat community of District Sangrur. Nachhatar Singh, Sarpanch of Village Isra, District Sangrur appeared as RW-5 and deposed that he was a Jat Sikh and his sub-caste was Billing. He deposed that there is a custom about customary divorce in their brotherhood, Gotra, in District Sangrur. He stated that this type of customary divorce is prevalent in their Gotra, brotherhood and District. He deposed that he had brought the original writing of customary divorce between Mohinder Kaur daughter of Karam Singh and Chand Singh son of Jagir Singh and proved its photocopy Ex. R4. He deposed that he was a witness to the said writing and proved his thumb mark on the original of R4. He stated that Karam Singh also belonged to Billing Gotra. He further stated that Chand Singh and Mohinder Kaur had re-married after this writing by customary divorce. During cross-examination, he stated that they were agriculturists. He admitted that the Gotra of one of the parties is not mentioned in the Ex. R4. RW-6 Joginder Singh of Village Dhadogal, District Sangrur, deposed that he was a Jat Sikh of Billing Gotra. He stated that there was a custom of customary divorce in their brotherhood in their District. He stated that his son Piara Singh was married with Mohinder Kaur of Village Sekha. He stated that a customary divorce between his son and his wife had taken place and that he had brought the original writing in this regard and proved photocopy thereof, Ex. R5. He deposed that he had re-married his son Piara Singh, after the customary divorce. During cross-examination, he admitted that in the writing Ex. R5, the Gotra is not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that he did not belong to Billing Gotra or that he is not a Jat. He denied the suggestion that there is no custom of divorce existing amongst agriculturists belonging to Billing Gotra. 15. To rebut the evidence led by the respondent, regarding customary divorce, petitioner examined Mohinder Singh, Halqa Patwari, Mehlan, District Sangrur, as AW-5. He deposed that in Riwaj-e-am Register of Village Mehlan, District Sangrur, there was no entry regarding custom amongst Jat Sikhs, permitting divorce to wives by their husbands outside the Court under custom by repudiation of the wife by the husband. He deposed that in Riwaj-e-am Register of Village Mehlan, District Sangrur, there was no entry regarding custom amongst Jat Sikhs, permitting divorce to wives by their husbands outside the Court under custom by repudiation of the wife by the husband. During cross-examination, he admitted that there was no mention of any custom regarding marriage or divorce in this regard. He stated that in fact, there is no column showing any custom regarding marriage or divorce. He stated that record brought by him was in Urdu and he did not know Urdu. He stated that in the Register of Wajib-ul-arz, of Village Mehlan, there was no column of custom regarding marriage or divorce or any other custom. 16. AW-6, Gurwant Singh, Clerk from the office of District Collector, Sangrur, deposed that he had brought the Wajib-al-arz and Riwaj-e-am Registers of village Mehlan, District Sangrur and proved copy thereof as Ex. AX. During cross-examination, he admitted that there was no column regarding marriages, re-marriages or divorce therein. He stated that it was a Jamabandi and Bandobasti register of 1930 and 1931. He stated that he did not know if there was any other register in D. C. Office, Sangrur, regarding marriages and divorce. 17. The petitioner also examined AW-2, Shingara Singh of Village Kalar Khurd, District Sangrur. He deposed that in District Sangrur, there is no custom of customary divorce and that no divorce takes place in panchayat. During cross-examination, he admitted that he was not a summoned witness and had come to the Court with Jasbir Singh, petitioner, who had come to his village to bring him with him. He stated that he had migrated from District Gujrawalan, Pakistan, and is a displaced person. He admitted that sub-caste of Inderjit Kaur is Billing and Billing caste is of local Jats. He denied the suggestion that there is a custom of customary divorce in the local Jat Sikhs in District Sangrur. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement at the instance of the petitioner, whose sister was married to the son of Jaimal Singh of their Village. He stated that Jaimal Singh, the relative of Jasbir Singh, petitioner had brought him in the Court. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement at the instance of the petitioner, whose sister was married to the son of Jaimal Singh of their Village. He stated that Jaimal Singh, the relative of Jasbir Singh, petitioner had brought him in the Court. AW-3 Mohinder Singh of Village Roshan Wala, District Sangrur deposed that he is Billing by caste and there was no custom of customary divorce in their caste in Sangrur District and the divorce takes place in Courts. During cross-examination, he stated that nobody came to him for giving evidence in this case and that he had come with Jaswant Singh, whose case was pending in this Court and which pertains to this very case. He stated that he did not know the caste of the petitioner. He stated that Jaswant Singh knew Joginder Singh of his village and that Joginder Singh originally belonged to Pakistan. He stated that he was on visiting terms with Joginder Singh and Joginder Singh had told him to come to Court about 5 days back. He denied the suggestion that he did not know about Billing sub-caste or there was a custom of customary divorce in District Sangrur as well as local Jat Sikhs. He denied the suggestion that he did not belong to local Jat Sikh community. He stated that he did not know the relationship of the petitioner with Joginder Singh. He denied that he deposed falsely at the instance of petitioner as well as Joginder Singh. AW-4 Darshan Singh of Village Kalaudi, Tehsil Sangrur deposed that he was of Billing Gotra. He stated that amongst Jats of their Gotra, there was no custom regarding dissolution of marriage through customary divorce without the intervention of the Court. During cross-examination, he stated that he was not a summoned witness and that the petitioner had brought him from his village. He stated that in fact, he did not know the name of the petitioner nor he knew his sub-caste. He stated that the petitioner was related to sons of Ganda Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was not of Billing Gotra. He also denied that among Jat community there is a custom permitting dissolution of marriage by customary divorce, with the intervention of Panchayat. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the petitioner and his relatives. 18. He denied the suggestion that he was not of Billing Gotra. He also denied that among Jat community there is a custom permitting dissolution of marriage by customary divorce, with the intervention of Panchayat. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the petitioner and his relatives. 18. From the entire evidence led by the parties, in my opinion, it stands established on the record that there is a custom amongst Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur regarding divorce under custom and as per said custom amongst Jat Sikhs, the divorce between the respondent Smt. Inderjit Kaur and her previous husband Lachhman Singh had taken place, as per writing Ex. R2. The other instances of customary divorce by way of writings, copies Exhibits R3, R4 and R5 are also available on record, which have been duly proved by the various witnesses examined by the respondent in this regard. The mere denial of such a custom by the various witnesses, examined by the petitioner, in my opinion, would not be enough to hold that there was no such custom amongst Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur, especially when one of the witnesses was not even an original resident of District Sangrur and was a displaced person, whereas the other two witnesses had come to the witness box at the instance of the petitioner and/or his relatives. In my opinion, the evidence led by the petitioner in this regard is not worthy of any reliance. On the other hand, from the evidence of various witnesses examined by the respondent, coupled with the documentary evidence proved by the said witnesses, it stands established on the record that there is a custom prevalent amongst Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur, whereby the marriages are dissolved, by way of writing between the parties. 19. Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , reads as under :- "29(2). Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act." 20. In view of the special provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, referred to above, it would be clear that if there is a custom recognising divorce amongst Hindus, the same shall be protected even after the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the special provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, referred to above, it would be clear that if there is a custom recognising divorce amongst Hindus, the same shall be protected even after the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act. Merely because there is no entry in the register Wajib-ul-arz and Register Riwaj-e-am, brought by AW-5, Mohinder Singh, Halqa Patwari, Mehlan and by AW-6 Gurwant Singh, Clerk from the office of District Collector, would be neither here nor there, especially when both the witnesses admitted that there is no column showing custom of marriage or divorce in those registers. In fact, AW-6, Gurwant Singh, Clerk deposed that the register brought by him was Jamabandi and Bandobasti Registers of 1930 and 1931. In my opinion, these registers would not disprove the case of the respondent about the custom prevailing amongst Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur, about the divorce under customary law. In Gurdit Singh V/s. Mst. Angrez Kaur, AIR 1968 SC 142, it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that a custom exists among the Hindu Jats of the Jalandhar District which permits a valid divorce by a husband of his wife which dissolves the marriage. It was further held that on the dissolution of such a marriage the divorced wife can enter into a valid marriage with a second husband in the lifetime of the first husband. The law laid down by this Court in (1962) Punj LR 1179, was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the said authority. In Balwinder Singh V/s. Smt. Gurpal Kaur, 1985 Marriage Law Journal 414 it was held by the Delhi High Court that on a plain reading of Sec. 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is manifest that a marriage may still be dissolved in accordance with a custom governing the parties or under any other law providing for the same. It was further held that the validity of any custom recognising the right to dissolve a marriage is expressly saved by this sub-section. It was further held that as a necessary corollary, it follows that it would not be necessary for the parties in any such case to go to Court to obtain divorce on grounds recognised by custom and it would be open to dissolve the marriage out of Court in accordance with such custom. It was further held that as a necessary corollary, it follows that it would not be necessary for the parties in any such case to go to Court to obtain divorce on grounds recognised by custom and it would be open to dissolve the marriage out of Court in accordance with such custom. It was further held that the net result will be that a Hindu marriage may now be dissolved under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under any other special enactment or in accordance with any custom applicable to the parties. Reliance was also placed on the law laid down by Hon ble Court, in Gurdit Singhs case (supra), in respect of the existence of such a custom in District Jalandhar. It was also held that the existence of such a custom permitting dissolution of marriage by divorce amongst Hindu Jats was also prevalent in District surrounding Jalandhar District, including Amritsar, Hoshiarpur and Ludhiana. 21. In view of the above, in my opinion, it can safely be held that there is a custom among Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur, permitting dissolution of marriage by divorce through writing executed by the parties in this regard and such a divorce would be recognised, in view of Sec. 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, in the cases referred to above. I am further of the opinion, that the learned Additional District Judge had rightly found that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent could not be annulled under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inasmuch as respondent had validly obtained a divorce from her previous husband Lachhman Singh, at the time when her marriage had taken place with the petitioner. Accordingly, I affirm the findings of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard. 22. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.