JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 19th March, 2015 (Annex.6) passed by learned Family Court, Bikaner (for short, 'learned Court below'). 2. By the order impugned, learned Court below has rejected the objection of the petitioner/non-applicant under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC for disallowing subsequent pleadings earlier taken on record. 3. Facts, in brief, are that respondent-applicant laid a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act of 1955') on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petition for divorce is contested by the petitioner-wife and the averments contained therein are refuted. After submission of reply to the petition for divorce, respondent-applicant submitted rejoinder reiterating the grounds urged in the petition for divorce. The rejoinder was taken on record by the learned Court below as no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner objected and submitted application (Annex.4) that rejoinder cannot form part of pleadings and the same may be kept in D-part of the file. 4. The Court below after hearing rival parties by the order impugned, observed that while taking on record rejoinder, no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner, and therefore, in that background in matrimonial proceedings technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the cause of justice. The learned Court below has also observed that the facts averred in the rejoinder are in consonance and conformity with the original petition for divorce and no new facts are mentioned in the rejoinder. 5. Considering the relevance of the averments contained in the rejoinder and the fact that rejoinder has already been taken on record, the learned Court below has rejected the objection of the petitioner-wife. On overall analysis of the impugned order and the fact that in matrimonial proceedings, the parties are represented either personally or through their next friend, some latitude is required to be given in the matter of pleadings and strict provisions of the pleadings cannot be pressed into service for doing substantial justice in the matter. 6. Therefore, taking a benevolent view, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the objection of the petitioner-wife. In my considered opinion, the discretion, which is judiciously exercised by the learned Court below, requires no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, which is required to be exercised with great care and circumspection. 6. Therefore, taking a benevolent view, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the objection of the petitioner-wife. In my considered opinion, the discretion, which is judiciously exercised by the learned Court below, requires no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, which is required to be exercised with great care and circumspection. 7. There is, apparently, no reason to infer that any miscarriage of justice has resulted by the impugned order.Resultantly, writ petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******