Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2232 (RAJ)

Pooja v. Upesh Solanki

2018-11-29

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Family Court, Dausa, wherein, the Family Court has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. By the impugned order, the Family Court has permitted the husband non-petitioner to make certain amendments in the divorce petition. 2. The Court below has recorded a finding that certain facts relating to the relief, sought for divorce, have additionally come into knowledge of the husband and as such, the husband sought amendment in the pleadings. 3. The Court below has found that the evidence is yet to be led by the parties in respect of divorce petition, which has been filed and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner wife, if the amendment is allowed. 4. Counsel submitted that the non-petitioner/husband had filed the divorce petition in the year 2016 and he had specifically taken a ground of cruelty in divorce petition and as such substituting the ground of adultery by way of amendment ,application was not justified. 5. Counsel submitted that husband-respondent was not vigilant and for permitting the amendment, it is sine-qua-non that one has to be diligent while seeking the amendment in the pleadings. Counsel submitted that the alleged ground which is sought to be taken relates to some conversation of the petitioner on the mobile phone, as such no ground of adultery can be inserted in the divorce petition. 6. Counsel further submitted that the respondent-husband while filing the divorce petition was in possession of all the alleged information relating to the new ground which is being set up and as such the order suffers from illegality passed by the Family Court. 7. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6694/2007 decided on 02.07.2008 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4913/2015 decided on 01.02.2017. 8. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, where the Court is required to look into the relevant facts permitting the amendment in the pleadings. 10. I have heard learned counsel. 11. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, where the Court is required to look into the relevant facts permitting the amendment in the pleadings. 10. I have heard learned counsel. 11. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality. The divorce petition has been filed by the non-petitioner and if some facts relating to seeking divorce additionally come into knowledge of the non-petitioner, the same can always be brought on record by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 12. This Court also finds that the ground of divorce which has been taken at initial stage and it is not required to file a fresh petition on the new ground, which was either available or which come into notice lateron. 13. This Court finds that the nature of the claim which is set up by the petitioner seeking relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty will not be changed due to the amendment sought for. 14. This Court finds that husband has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and the divorce application has been submitted by the petitioner-husband in the year 2016 and the parties will be given ample opportunity to defend in the proceedings and as such no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner and the petitioner can always file relevant evidence/document, to rebut the allegation which are leveled by way of amendment. 15. This court does not want to interfere in the impugned order, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.