{"id":16265,"date":"1999-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999"},"modified":"2017-12-27T19:27:59","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T13:57:59","slug":"jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 129, 82 (1999) DLT 552, II (1999) DMC 736, 1999 (51) DRJ 689<\/div>\n
Author: M Siddiqui<\/div>\n
Bench: M Siddiqui<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.<\/p>\n
1.     The  appellant was married to the respondent No.1 on 25.9.1977.  Sometime after marriage, respondent No.1 was transferred to Nagaland.  Unfortunately,  the  appellant  could not accompany him to Nagaland  as  a  result whereof  some dark, portentous cloud started hovering between her  and  the happiness  she had so joyfully anticipated. A Naga woman in the shape of  a serpent  entered  into the paradise of her happiness and her  husband  (respondent  No.1) had fallen. The said Naga woman had stolen away his  affection,  and by the magical sorcery of the seducer’s spell,  had  transformed his former love into settled hatred and aversion. Respondent No.1, whom she had  left so kind, so full of affection, on his posting at Shimla,  greeted her  with  cold indifference and even denied her those  matrimonial  privileges, which as a legally wedded wife, were her of right to demand. Dispirited and discouraged at the failure to regain her husband’s affection,  her vision of happiness dissipated and she approached the Army Authorities  for maintenance,  which  was granted. Overpowered by the  fascinations  of  his concubine,  respondent  No.1  filed a petition against  the  appellant  for dissolution of marriage. By the order dated 20.7.1988 passed by the Supreme Court,  the  said  petition  was transferred from  Amritsar  to  Delhi.  On 1.12.1988, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming for maintenance pendente lite on the ground that  she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain herself and her  child.  Believing the affidavit filed by the  appellant,  the  learned Addl.  District  Judge  granted interim maintenance  to  the  appellant  at Rs.1,000\/-  per  month for herself and Rs. 300\/- per month  for  her  minor child  vide  orders  dated 18.3.1989. Thereafter, the  appellant  filed  an application  before the Supreme Court for transfer of the  defamation  case pending  against  her before the Danapur Court. In  that  application,  she stated  that  she  was employed as a teacher  in  Badal  Academy,  Faridkot (Punjab).  Taking advantage of the averments made in the said  application, the respondent No.1, on 18.10.1995, filed an application under Section 151 CPC for modification of the maintenance order dated 18.3.1989. By the order dated 22.7.1996, learned ADJ allowed the application of the respondent No.1 and  vacated  the maintenance order dated 18.3.1989. After passing  of  the modification  order dated 22.7.1996, respondent No.1 filed  an  application under  Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making an enquiry into the offences  alleged to have been committed by the appellant under sections 193\/199 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  application was opposed by the appellant. The learned Addl.  District  Judge  took the view that it was expedient to make a  criminal  complaint  against the appellant as the materials available make out  a  prima facie  case under Sections 193\/199 IPC against her. He, therefore,  allowed the  petition  under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent  No.1  and directed  the  appellant’s  prosecution  for  perjury  vide  orders   dated 22.8.1997.  Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up in  appeal  before this court.\n<\/p>\n
3.   It  is  undisputed that in the divorce proceedings  initiated  by  the respondent No.1. the appellant has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act supported by her affidavit claiming interim  maintenance on the ground that she was having no independent source of income  or means to maintain her and her child and that interim maintenance was granted  to  her and her child on the basis of the said averments  made  in  the application.  It  is also undisputed that in an application  filed  by  the appellant before the Supreme Court for transfer of defamation case filed by the  respondent  No.1, she had stated that she was employed as  teacher  in Badal  Academy, Faridkot, Punjab. In view of the said admissions it  cannot be  doubted  that in the divorce proceedings, the  appellant  succeeded  in obtaining  a maintenance order on the ground of a false statement that  she
\nwas having no independent source of income or means to maintain her and her child. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the expediency for prosecuting the appellant for the offence of per jury was  justified as the appellant deliberately utilised the process of Court for the purpose of  getting  an order of maintenance on the basis of  incorrect  and  false statement.\n<\/p>\n
4.   A  bare reading of Section 340 Cr.P.C. would make it clear that  power thereunder can be exercised by the Court either suo moto or upon the application made to it in that behalf. Before invoking the provisions of Section 340  of the Code, the Court has to form an opinion that it is expedient  in the  interest of justice that an enquiry be made into any offence  referred to  in  clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195.  In  Patel  Laljibhai Somabhai  Vs. The State of Gujarat , the Apex  Court  has
\nanalysed the purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as under :-\n<\/p>\n
      “The  underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c)      and Section 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of  the private parties considering themselves aggrieved  by  the  offences  mentioned in those sections to start criminal  prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a  revengeful  desire to harass or spite their  opponents.  These  offences  have been selected for the court’s control  because  of  their  direct impact on the judicial process. It is the  judicial process,  in  other words the administration of  public  justice, which  is  the  direct and immediate object or  victim  of  those  offences  and  it is only by misleading the  courts  and  thereby  perverting  the due course of law and justice that  the  ultimate  object  of harming the private party is designed to be  realised.      As the purity of the proceedings of court is directly sullied  by  the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party  entitled  to  consider the desirability of complaining against  the  guilty  party.  The  private  party designed  ultimately  to  be  injured  through the offence against the administration of public  justice  is  undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading  it  to  file  the  complaint. But such party is deprived of  the  general  right recognized by section 190 Cr.P.C of the aggrieved  parties, directly initiating the criminal proceedings. The offences  about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved  private  parties is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore,  be  appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a  party to a proceeding in that Court, the commission of which  has  a  reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that  court  so  that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent  and  fresh  inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference  principally  to  its  records  the expediency of  prosecuting  the  delinquent  party.”\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  aforesaid  observations  of their Lordships will  show  that  the provisions  of  Section 340 of the Code are intended to  provide  safeguard against criminal prosecution on insufficient grounds filed against a  party by  his  opponent motivated by a revengeful desire to harass or  spite  the opponent.  It is not the law that every false statement should attract  the provision  of Section 340 of the Code. In Thomman Vs. IInd  Addl.  Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and others (1994 (Crl.L.J.) 48) it was observed by Hon’ble Thomas, J. that “If the court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by  parties  in courts there would be very little time for courts  for  any serious  work other than directing prosecution for perjury. Again the  edge of  such weapon would become blunted by indiscriminate use. The gravity  of
\nthe false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is  made, the  object of making such statement and its tendency to impede and  impair the normal flow of the course of justice are matters for consideration when the court decides on the propriety of instituting a complaint for per jury. ”  In the context reference may also be made to the following  observations of  the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and  another  .\n<\/p>\n
      “…….Every  incorrect  or  false statement does  not  make  it incumbent  on  the court to order prosecution. The court  has  to exercise  judicial  discretion in the light of all  the  relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency.  The court  orders prosecution in the larger interest of the  administration  of justice and not to gratify feelings of  personal  revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private  party.  Too  frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to  defeat  its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate  falsehood where  conviction is highly likely, that the court should  direct prosecution.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   Let us consider the circumstances under which the petitioner has filed the  application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the  divorce proceedings initiated by her husband (respondent No.1). As noticed earlier, during  his posting in Nagaland, the respondent No.1 had kept a Naga  Woman as his concubine. Thereafter, respondent No.1 initiated divorce proceedings against the appellant. Naturally, the petitioner must have been hurt by the treacherous conduct of her husband (respondent No.1) as he had betrayed her to  ruin.  The  memory of her desolated home and departed  joy  must  have, instinctively  re-echoed  the  percept of Almighty God that  “the  man  who committed adultery with the neighbour’s wife, the adulterer shall  surely be  put  to death.” What must have been the feeling of such a wife  at  the discovery  that  her husband could have been guilty of such  imprudence  of conduct as to make her life miserable. She was not only forever deprived of the  comfort  and society of the husband she so adored, that not  only  her innocent child robbed of his father’s affection, but she herself was placed in  a situation too dreadful to be endured. It was a torture that no  words can  communicate, no language can depict to others. Thus, there was  a  war between two spouses, which impelled the appellant to claim maintenance from her husband (respondent No.1) in the divorce proceedings initiated  against her.  It was a painful circumstance in connection with the wrong  committed by  the respondent No.1, which might have actuated the appellant to make  a false  statement in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu  Marriage Act. It has to be borne in mind that power under Section 340 of the Code is a  drastic power, which should be used to curb the evil of perjury  and  to
\nkeep  the flow of judicial proceedings unsullied and pure. But  this  power cannot  be permitted to be utilised by a party to serve his own ends or  to satisfy his own urge for revenge, as seems to have been done in the present case. It needs to be highlighted that while vacating the maintenance  order dated  22.7.1996, learned Addl. District Judge did take notice of the  fact that  said order had been obtained by the appellant on the basis  of  false statement  made by her, yet he did not proceed against the appellant  under Section 340 of the Code. On the contrary, after the passing of  the  order dated 22.7.1996, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 340  of the Code seeking direction to file a criminal complaint against the  appellant.  Viewing the circumstances mentioned above, it seems that the  object of  filing the said application was not so much to vindicate the purity  of the  administration of justice but to see that the appellant who  had  been contesting  the  divorce proceedings be punished under  the  provisions  of penal law. Once it is held that the motivation behind the application under section 340 of the Code was to gratify his feelings of revenge, then  automatically a finding on the issue of expediency must be recorded against the respondent  No.1. It is also salutary to note that judicial process  should not  be  allowed  to be used as an instrument of  oppression  and  needless harassment.  At the stage of invoking the provision of Section 340  of  the Code,  the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising  discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into  consideration  before directing prosecution for perjury lest it would be  an  instrument  in  the hands of a person as vendetta to  harass  his  opponents. Vindication  of  majesty of justice and maintenance of law  and  order  and social  stability in the society are the prime objects of criminal  justice but  it should not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In  this  context, I may usefully except the following observations of his Lordship M.M. Punchi,. J. (as he then was) in the case of Jaswinder Singh Vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (1986 Cri.L.J. 1398) :-\n<\/p>\n
      “…….It is a settled principle of law that courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta  or to  take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the  other. The  primary object to take proceedings under Section 340 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, in instituting a complaint for giving false  evidence, is to curb the evil of perjury and to  keep  the flow of proceedings in courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare  case,  when the Court comes to the conclusion that  if  the complaint  is filed conviction is more or less a certainty,  that it  chooses  to become a complainant. In  such  like  contentious issues,  when  the  wife can again indulge in  proving  that  the husband was wrong and she was right, it is not expedient for this Court  to  enter into the fact and become a  complainant  at  the behest  of the husband-petitioner. Thus, I am of  the  considered  view that it is not expedient to pursue the matter any further at the instance of the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
7.   For the reasons discussed above, I do not think that this is a  proper case  which  can be regarded as expedient, in the interest of  justice,  to proceed against the appellant under Section 340 Cr. P.C. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.8.1997 is set aside.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 129, 82 (1999) DLT 552, II (1999) DMC 736, 1999 (51) DRJ 689 Author: M Siddiqui Bench: M Siddiqui ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The appellant was married to the respondent No.1 on 25.9.1977. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2354,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999"},"wordCount":2354,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999","name":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T13:57:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-kaur-vs-harjeet-singh-lt-col-anr-on-27-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}