Sarabjit Singh vs Charanjit Kaur on 30 May, 1996
4. The respondent's learned counsel contended that the wife has admitted that earlier she was married to Kashmira Singh, but she has also pleaded that under the customary law her first marriage was duly dissolved on May 31, 1991, and thereafter on March 6, 1992, she was married to the petitioner as per Sikh rites. The parties are yet to adduce evidence. She has to prove dissolution of her first marriage as per customary law, which she is entitled to prove under S. 29(2) of the Act. It is held in Smt. Rita Rani v. Ramesh Kumar, (1995) 2 Pun LR 434: (AIR 1995 Punj & Har 337) that marriage can be dissolved by brotherhood or by executing an agreement as per customary law. His second contention is that under S. 24 of the Act it is not necessary that before claiming maintenance the wife or the husband, as the case may be, must first prove that he or she is the legally wedded wife/husband, of the opposite party. Section 24 clearly envisages grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings in any proceeding under this Act, which embraces within its fold a petition under S. 11 of the Act as well. He also argued that the authorities relied on by the petitioner's counsel are distinguishable on facts.