Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 26.7.2011 passed upon application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., whereby, the application filed by the petitioner wife is rejected. 2. As per facts of the case, the respondent-husband filed divorce petition against the petitioner, in which, a written-statement was filed by the petitioner-wife in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu). 2. As per facts of the case, the respondent-husband filed divorce petition against the petitioner, in which, a written-statement was filed by the petitioner-wife in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu). After filing the written statement, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner to incorporate following para in the written statement which reads as under : ^^tokc dh en la[;k 21 o 22 fuEu izdkj ls vksj tksMs tkus dh —ik djs% 21- isVh'kuj o mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us uksu isVh'kuj dks cgyk Qqlyk dj /kks[kk nsus dh fu;r ls o visu vki dks ykHk igq¡pkus dh fu;r ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa py jgh vihy esa ykHk izkIr djus dh fu;r ls uksuisVh'kuj dks fo'okl esa ysdj ,d jkthukek ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa isVh'kuj o mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us is'k djok;k] ftldh en la[;k 4 esa fuEu rF; vafdr fd;s x;s %& That now the parties have arrived at a settlement in relation to all the issues between them and the applicant does not wish the prosecution of appellant-Mukesh in the matter and has compromised all her disputes with the appellant Mukesh as well as her in-laws' mijksä jkthukesa ls ;g Li"V gS fd isVh'kuj us uksuisVh'kuj ls leLr fookn fuiVk fy;k FkkA vkSj ;g rykd isVh'ku foMªks dh tkdj iqu% nkEiR; thou lqpk: :i ls pyk;s tkus dh jtkeanh gq;h FkhA bl izdkj ls vc ;g rykd isVh'ku /kks[kknsgh ds vk/kkj ij fopkjk/khu pyh vk jgh gS vkSj isVh'kuj uksuisVh'kuj dks /kks[kk nsdj rykd dh fMØh vkKIr djokus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 22- isVh'kuj us tks xzkm.M~l viuh rykd isVh'ku esa fy;s gS os xzkm.M~l ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa jkthukek izLrqr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ reke xzkm.M~l isVh'kuj ls oso gks pqds gS vkSj isVh'kuj ds rykd isVh'ku ds xzkm.M~l oso dj nsus ds dkj.k vc rykd isVh'ku eSUVsuscy ugha vkSj blh vk/kkj ij rykd isVh'ku [kkfjt fd;s tkus dkfcy gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djds fuosnu gs fd mijksä :i ls uksuisVh'kuj ds }kjk izLrqr tokc esa la'kks/ku fd;s tkus dh —ik djsa rkfd rykd isVh'ku izLrqr gksus] tokc vkus] rudh;kr cuus] isVh'kuj dh lk{; vius ds i'pkr~ lClhDosUV-bosaV mRiUu gq;s gS ftudks IyhfMax esa fy;k tkuk vko';d gSA ftlls uksuisVh'kuj o mlds ukckfyx cPps dks U;k; fey ldsA** 3. The above amendment was felt necessary for proper adjudication because Mukesh Kumar, brother of petitioner's husband committed offence under Section 376, read with Section 120B, I.P.C. against her, for which, a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 3.5.2007. In that case, after due investigation, challan was filed and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh vide judgment dated 28.11.2007 convicted Mukesh Kumar under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 7 years. Against that judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Mukesh Kumar filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 988/2007 before this Court. 4. During the pendency of the divorce petition and criminal appeal filed by accused Mukesh Kumar, entire matter was settled and petitioner submitted an application under Section 320, Cr.P.C. As per the settlement, respondent husband was to withdraw the divorce petition so as to restart the matrimonial life; but, when the husband did not withdraw the divorce petition, then, the petitioner moved application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., so as to incorporate the subsequent events in the written-statement. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application filed by he petitioner for amendment in the written-statement vide order dated 6.7.2011 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement is totally illegal and perverse because, on the one hand, assurance was given to the petitioner that she may compromise the criminal matter against brother-in-law Mukesh Kumar and, thereafter, the divorce petition will be withdrawn by the respondent husband. But, when the divorce petition filed by the respondent husband was not withdrawn, then, the only course was left with the petitioner to seek amendment in the written statement for apprising the court with the subsequent events which is necessary for adjudication of the controversy. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court observed in the impugned order that dispute in the divorce petition is in between husband Dharampal and wife Manju Devi and compromise with Mukesh Kumar has no relevance nor husband Dharampal can be insisted upon to withdraw the divorce petition because the petitioner has compromised the criminal mater with Mukesh Kumar, therefore, the trial Court wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner while giving the above reason. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subsequent events are important events which throw light upon the conduct of the husband and the in-laws family members, therefore, the reasons given for rejection are totally unwarranted. Hence, it is prayed that order impugned may be quashed and application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement filed in Civil Misc. Divorce Case No. 16/2007 may be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent contends that if any compromise is arrived at in between Mukesh Kumar and petitioner Smt. Manju Devi it does not affect the fate of the case filed by the applicant husband, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment in the written-statement. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is strength in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner who is wife of the respondent husband was raped by her brother-in-law Mukesh Kumar and, for that offence, he was convicted by the criminal Court and, in appeal, upon pressure made by in-law family, compromise was entered obviously upon the assurance of the respondent husband that he will withdraw the divorce petition; meaning thereby, it is very important fact which comes into existence during the pendency of the divorce petition, therefore, the Court cannot lose sight of he fact hat such incident is required to be taken into consideration for adjudication of the divorce petition. The reason shown by the trial Court for rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. is based upon superficial application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case which is erroneous and not sustainable in law for the purpose of incorporating the subsequent facts in the written statement. 10. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that order passed by the trial Court suffers from material irregularity and illegality. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 26.7.2011 is quashed and set aside and application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the written-statement in Divorce Case No. 16/2007 pending before the Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh is hereby allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 26.7.2011 is quashed and set aside and application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the written-statement in Divorce Case No. 16/2007 pending before the Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh is hereby allowed. The petitioner is permitted to file amended written-statement and trial Court is directed to accept the same within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. Further, the respondent will also be entitled to file his rejoinder to the newly added grounds.