Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 454 (PNJ)

Kiran Sahrawat v. Ravee Sahrawat

2015-03-20

MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, RAJ RAHUL GARG

body2015
Raj Rahul Garg, J. 1. Mrs. Kiran Sahrawat (second wife of Lt. Col. Ravee Sahrawat (Retd.)) filed this application bearing CM 162-CII of 1999, seeking leave of this Court to file appeal i.e. FAO No. 2-M of 1999 against the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998, rendered by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of above numbered appeal are as follows; Lt. Col. Ravee Sahrawat got married to Ujjwal (first wife) on 11.7.1970. A daughter, namely; Mannat was born out of this wedlock on 9.5.1979. Ravee Sahrawat filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking decree of divorce, against Mrs. Ujjwal Sahrawat, on 20.12.1986. That petition was instituted in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Chhata Nagpur, which was eventually transferred to Chandigarh by order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the application moved by the wife. The aforesaid divorce petition was decided in favour of Ravee Sahrawat vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.1991. 3. After duly waiting for the period of limitation for filing of appeal against the decree of divorce, Ravee Sahrawat re-married Kiran Sahrawat (present appellant) on 21.4.1991. A son was born out of this wedlock on 4.10.1993. 4. Thereafter, on 17.6.1991, Ujjwal Sahrawat, with a motive to harass the appellant and Ravee Sahrawat, preferred an appeal bearing FAO No. 35-M of 1992 before this Court. Inter alia, alleging therein that her counsel Mr. Vakil Chand, Advocate, never informed her about the granting of divorce and that she has never authorised Mr. Vakil Chand, Advocate, to make any statement in the Court. Vide judgment dated 31.5.1995, this Court (High Court) allowed the appeal of Ujjwal Sahrawat and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court with the direction to give 4 more effective opportunities to Ujjwal Sahrawat for producing her evidence and to decide the divorce petition afresh. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 31.5.1995 Kiran Sahrawat and Ravee Sahrawat preferred two separate appeals bearing LPA No. 668 of 1995 and LPA No. 287 of 1996, which were disposed of by this Court vide common judgment and order dated 20.11.1996 and the Hon'ble Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of remand, by holding that the course adopted by the learned Single Judge was neither illegal nor unreasonable, so was not to be interfered with. 6. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 20.11.1996, upholding the order of remand dated 31.5.1995, Ravee Sahrawat and Kiran Sahrawat filed SLP (Civil) No. 1069-1070 of 1996. The aforesaid SLPs were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme of India Court vide order dated 12.9.1997. 7. In the present application and appeal it was pleaded by applicant/appellant Kiran Sahrawat that since she is the legally wedded wife of Ravee Sahrawat, therefore, after coming to know about the proceedings going on in the trial Court after remand of the case, she moved one application with the prayer to implead her as a party to the case. That application was rejected by the Court vide order dated 18.12.1997. Thereafter, Kiran did not go in revision against the aforesaid order of dismissal of application, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by her but kept quite. Ultimately, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998, the divorce petition filed by Ravee Sahrawat was dismissed. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances now Kiran has filed the present application seeking permission of this Court to file above appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998. 9. Reply was filed by Ujjwal Sahrawat (respondent No. 2 herein) averring that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by Kiran was dismissed. She did not file any appeal against that order. That order has achieved finality and now by way of filing the present application and appeal, she cannot challenge that order. She was, in fact, not a party to the divorce petition. As such, she has got no right to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998. She also pleaded that Kiran Sahrawat has challenged the order of remand by filing LPA and even by filing SLP. She lost the case throughout and as such, the appeal in question as well the present application, are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2 and also appraised the entire material coming on record. 11. At the very outset, we would like to make a mention that Lt. Col. Ravee Sahrawat also filed appeal bearing FAO No. 140-M of 1998, which is pending in this Court. Undisputedly, Ravee Sahrawat has died. R.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2 and also appraised the entire material coming on record. 11. At the very outset, we would like to make a mention that Lt. Col. Ravee Sahrawat also filed appeal bearing FAO No. 140-M of 1998, which is pending in this Court. Undisputedly, Ravee Sahrawat has died. In that appeal, question of bringing on record legal representatives of deceased is yet to be gone into. Kiran Sahrawat/appellant of this case as well her son Suhail claim themselves as legal heirs of deceased Ravee Sahrawat and they intend to contest the divorce petition being legal heirs of Ravee Sahrawat. 12. It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since she is the legally wedded wife of Late Ravee Sahrawat, therefore, in case impugned order dated 6.6.1998 sustains, then she would be the most aggrieved person and her rights would be adversely affected. As such, she is the necessary party and has locus standi to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and to contest the same. 13. The above contention of learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable as she has already filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment as a party in this case. At that time also, the same very arguments were advanced before the learned trial Court but the same did not find favour with the Court, as such, the application for impleading Kiran Sahrawat as necessary party in the divorce petition, was dismissed on 18.12.1997. 14. Without going into the merits of the application, we are of the view that since the aforesaid order dated 18.12.1997 was not challenged by Kiran and has achieved finality, therefore, now on this ground, leave to file appeal cannot be granted. 15. Next argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that Ujjwal Sahrawat, in fact, accepted their marriage and this is evident from the fact that applicant Kiran Sahrawat, Ravee Sahrawat and other relatives were with Ujjwal Sahrawat in celebration of birthday of Tamanna, their daughter. Subsequently, in connivance with Ravee Sahrawat and in order to harass Kiran Sahrawat, Ujjwal Sahrawat filed the appeal against judgment dated 9.1.1991. 16. Subsequently, in connivance with Ravee Sahrawat and in order to harass Kiran Sahrawat, Ujjwal Sahrawat filed the appeal against judgment dated 9.1.1991. 16. This argument of learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable as appeal filed by Ujjwal Sahrawat has already been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court and against the order of learned Single Judge, Kiran Sahrawat and Ravee Sahrawat already filed LPA and SLP, which have also been dismissed. Not only this, Kiran Sahrawat had also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment as necessary party in the divorce petition, which was dismissed. She did not choose to file any appeal against that order. Consequently, this order attained finality. Now the argument raised by Kiran Sahrawat that only in order to harass her, Ujjwal Sahrawat filed appeal, becomes irrelevant. 17. The collusion of Kiran Sahrawat and Ravee Sahrawat also cannot be said to be there as Ravee Sahrawat had also preferred an appeal bearing FAO No. 140-M of 1998 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998, which is still pending decision. 18. It was next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the factum of marriage of Kiran with Ravee Sahrawat has been totally ignored by the learned trial Court. Ravee Sahrawat married to her only after expiry of period of limitation. As per provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage of Kiran with Ravee Sahrawat was a legal marriage. Now by dismissing the divorce petition of Ravee Sahrawat, the trial Court has complicated the matter. Under these circumstances, the applicant is the most aggrieved person against the impugned judgment and decree, as the same is a serious threat to her rights and her marital status and her rights are adversely affected. 19. The above argument of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is again not sustainable as in the divorce petition, husband and wife are the affected parties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed. In the absence of challenge of aforesaid order of dismissal of application, the same achieved finality. As such, Kiran Sahrawat was not party to the divorce petition. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed. In the absence of challenge of aforesaid order of dismissal of application, the same achieved finality. As such, Kiran Sahrawat was not party to the divorce petition. Since, she was not a party to the divorce petition, therefore, she cannot be permitted to file appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998. 20. However, Ravee Sharawat/husband has also filed appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998, which is pending decision. Ravee Sahrawat has died. Now the question as to whether his legal representatives can be brought on record to pursue the divorce petition or not, is yet to be gone into in that appeal. Kiran Sahrawat as well her son Suhail claim themselves as legal heirs of deceased Ravee Sahrawat. 21. Without prejudice to their rights in that appeal bearing FAO No. 140-M of 1999, finding no ground to grant leave to appeal to applicant/appellant Kiran Sahrawat, the present application and appeal are ordered to be dismissed.