Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 454 (ALL)

Anurag Mittal v. Sonia Gupta

2020-02-10

SHASHI KANT GUPTA, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Suit No. 53 of 2018 (Smt. Sonia Gupta Versus Anurag Mittal) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the written statement has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. Perusal of the record shows that an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband mainly on the ground that he is very fat and overweight and not capable to cohabit with the respondent-wife. The record further shows that the divorce petition was filed by the respondent-wife on 09.01.2018 and thereafter on 02.08.2018 the appellant filed his written statement rebutting the contention so made by the respondent. Affidavits were also filed by the plaintiff/respondent as P.W.1 and P.W. 2 namely Deepak Gupta and the plaintiff/respondent was cross-examined on 07.02.2019. On 27.02.2019, the appellant/defendant filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement against which objection was also filed by the respondent. The Trial Court has rejected the said application by impugned order dated 18.12.2019. 4. Perusal of the record further shows that before filing of the amendment application, an application was filed on 07.02.2019 by the appellant/defendant seeking mediation between the parties but the plaintiff/respondent refused to enter into mediation proceedings and upon refusal of the plaintiff, the cross-examination of the plaintiff was commenced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has illegally rejected the amendment application filed by the appellant/defendant on the ground that the amendment application was filed at a belated stage only to delay the proceedings. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered the fact that before commencement of the cross examination, the appellant/defendant had attempted to reconcile with the plaintiff and had requested the Court below to initiate mediation proceedings between the parties but since the plaintiff was vehemently opposed to the mediation process, the defendant had to cross examine the plaintiff. 6. 6. It is suffice to say that in case the plaintiff/respondent is not at all prepared to enter into any kind of settlement, she can not be forced to do so, as such, the Court below was fully justified in rejecting the application for mediation. We have also perused the application filed by the appellant seeking amendment in the written statement. None of the facts, which is sought to be incorporated by the appellant in his written statement can not be said to be not within the knowledge of the appellant at the time of filing of the written statement. We are also of the opinion that the rejection of the amendment application would not in any way going to prejudice the case of the appellant. It may also be noted that cross examination has already been commenced. It appears that the present application has been filed mainly to delay the disposal of the divorce suit. Since the trial has already been commenced, no such amendment can be allowed in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 7. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned order and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the court below which may warrant any interference. 8. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.