Rajesh Bindal J. - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned court below, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-husband for annulment of marriage with the respondent-wife, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts, as are available from the judgment of the learned court below, are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 9.1.1998 at Jalandhar according to Sikh religious rites. The parties lived and cohabited for about a month at Jalandhar, however, no child was born out of the wedlock. As the respondent was a resident of Canada, the mediators at that time had assured that she was unmarried and the marriage was solemnized quite early, considering the fact that she had to leave back. The appellant came to know about the status of the respondent being already married at the time of marriage with him, when about 15 days after the marriage, uncle of the appellant leaving in Canada contacted the father of the appellant to congratulate. At that time, he asked for the particulars of the respondent. After getting the particulars and on enquiry, he found that in fact, the respondent was already married to one Surinder Kumar, who was residing in Canada. When this fact was confronted to the respondent, she stated that she was never married with other person and in fact she was engaged with some person in Canada, but the engagement was broken before the marriage with the appellant. The respondent returned to Canada on 2.2.1998 and assured that she would send the immigration papers for the appellant, but that day never came.

3. The claim set up by the appellant was contested by the respondent by filing written statement through her attorney, stating therein that in fact, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by Superior Court of Justice at Brampton (Canada) w.e.f. 1.4.2000, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable, as there is no subsisting marriage between the parties. Though the factum of marriage with the appellant was admitted, but the date was sought to be disputed. It was claimed that the marriage was solemnized on 8.11.1998 and not on 9.1.1998. She refuted the allegation that she had claimed at the initial stage that she was unmarried, rather, she categorically informed the appellant that she was a divorcee. The trouble arose as after the marriage, the parents of the appellant demanded more dowry and cash and also tortured her and it was on that account that she had left India and went back to Canada.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the court below framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner was married with the respondent on 9.1.1998, as alleged ?OPA

2. If issue No.1 is not proved, whether the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 8.11.1998, as alleged by respondent ? OPR

3. Whether the marriage in between the parties has already been dissolved by way of decree of divorce by Superior Court of Justice at Brampton, Canada ?OPR

4. Whether before the marriage with the petitioner, the respondent was having living spouse namely Surinder Kumar, with whom her marriage has not been dissolved ?OPA

5. Relief.”

5. As regards dissolution of marriage by the Court at Canada, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had been dissolved w.e.f. 1.4.2000 by a decree passed by the Superior Court of Justice at Brampton (Canada) vide certificate (Ex. R1). As regards the dispute raised by the parties regarding the marriage having been solemnized either on 9.1.1998 or 8.11.1998, the learned court below decided the issue against the appellant holding that the appellant had not been able to substantiate the claim that the marriage between the parties took place on 8.11.1998. In view of the case set up by the respondent that in fact she got divorce from her earlier marriage w.e.f. 19.6.1998 and the marriage of the appellant having been solemnized on 8.11.1998, o case for declari