Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 244 (RAJ)

Rajendra Soni v. Shashi Soni

2025-02-07

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
Order : 1. The present impugned order is directed against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh in Family Case No.521/2021. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he moved an application to amend the decree by correcting the name of the petitioner in the cause-title of the judgment and decree. However, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the judgment and decree was prepared in terms of the cause-title contained in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not file the reply. Subsequently, an application was filed by him before the learned Family Court seeking relief from the learned Family Court for engaging the counsel to defend himself. In the said petition, he has specifically mentioned that his name is ‘Rajendra Kumar’ and not ‘Rajendra Soni’ as mentioned in the petition filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act . Subsequently, a consent decree was passed dissolving the marriage. In the Judgment and decree prepared, the name of the respondent was mentioned as ‘Rajendra Soni’ instead of ‘Rajendra Kumar’. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the divorce took place between the parties by consent resulting the dissolution of marriage. It is also not disputed by both the counsels that an application was filed before the learned Family Court while the proceedings were pending seeking a leave of the Court to permit the respondent therein for engaging the counsel to defend him. 5. In the said application, the husband claimed to have mentioned his name as Rajendra Kumar and not Rajendra Soni as reflected in the original petition. 6. In the said background of the facts, after the decree was passed, the present impugned application was filed before the learned Family Court seeking correction of his name in the cause- title of the judgment and decree. The said application was dismissed by the learned Family Court on the ground that the cause-title reflected in the judgment and decree prepared was in tune with the cause-title mentioned in the petition filed for the divorce. The reason assigned by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be incorrect. The judgment and decree cause-title would be prepared in terms of the cause-title mentioned in the petition, which was filed for the divorce. 7. The reason assigned by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be incorrect. The judgment and decree cause-title would be prepared in terms of the cause-title mentioned in the petition, which was filed for the divorce. 7. In the present case, unfortunately, though application was filed in the name of Rajendra Kumar while seeking permission of the Court to engage the counsel, before the settlement was arrived, the cause-title in the original petition could not be amended for one or other reason. Unless the cause-title in the original petition is amended, the petitioner cannot seek correction of cause-title in the judgment and decree, therefore, no fault is found with the impugned order. 8. In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed, however, liberty is given to the petitioner to seek an amendment in the cause-title in the original petition and consequently, make a request for amendment in the cause-title in the judgment and decree. 9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.