JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The present petition challenges an order passed by Family Court at Nagpur on an application for amendment of the divorce petition originally filed on the ground of cruelty so as to include a ground of desertion, since during the pendency of the petition, the statutory period of two years of desertion had already elapsed and the petitioner was in a position to apply for divorce additionally on the ground of desertion. The application is rejected on the ground that for the purpose of desertion as a ground for divorce, two years’ separation must have elapsed before the date of institution of the petition and not during the pendency of the petition. 4. We are not considering here a case, where a divorce petition, originally filed on the ground of separation, is sought to be made maintainable on the ground that two years have actually elapsed during the pendency of the petition. The petition, originally filed on the ground of cruelty, was maintainable as such on the date when it was filed. Since during the pendency of this petition, the statutory period of two years of separation has also elapsed, the petitioner is in a position to apply for divorce additionally on the ground of desertion. He can certainly do so by amending his original petition. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar Sinha vs. State of U.P. and ors., reported in 2008 (2) ADJ 584 . 5. The impugned order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, thus, cannot be sustained. The order refuses to allow the amendment on a wholly untenable ground and needs to be corrected in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute and the petition is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19th July, 2016 and allowing the amendment application Exh.30. 7. It is made clear that this amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the application for amendment and not to the date of presentation of the original petition. 7. It is made clear that this amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the application for amendment and not to the date of presentation of the original petition. It is also made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open, to be decided at the hearing of the matrimonial petition. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.