High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satya Pal v. Smt. Geeta Devi - WRIT - C No. 24069 of 2006  RD-AH 8817 (2 May 2006)
Court No. 24
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24069 of 2006
Satya pal ................ ........Petitioner.
Smt. Geeta Devi ......... Respondent.
Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
1. The present respondent, who is wife of the petitioner, had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from her husband-petitioner. Additional Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.) Saharanpur , who vide its order dated 28.5.2001, allowed the application. The aggrieved husband challenged if by filing an appeal bearing No. 60 of 2001 (Satyapal Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi) before the Addl. District Judge, Court No.9, Saharanpur and the appellant husband also moved an application under Order- 6 Rule -17 C.P.C., seeking amendment in the written statement in the petition of the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act saying earlier to her application under Section 13 filed, she had already filed two more applications under the same provisions being No. 18 of 1991 and 170 of 1991, which were dismissed as withdrawn and in default respectively and these facts on the record by this amendment were for it was necessary for effective disposal of the case. The learned Addl. District Judge, vide order dated 24.2.2006 rejected the amendment application on the following grounds; and that is how this petition.
(i) Applicant wife had filed the certified copies of the orders passed in those two earlier petitions before the trial court and an issue no.3 was raised by the court which the Court decided after hearing both the parties.
(ii) Amendment application was filed with a great delay which could be filed before the trial court.
(iii) Even if, amendment was allowed, it was not going to lend any assistance for effective disposal of the case.
2. Heard Sri H.P. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The certified copies of the orders passed in both the petition No. 18 of 1991 and 170 of 1991 of the wife were laid on the file of the lower court by the wife herself and an issue No. 3 was framed on their basis, parties were heard and the issue was decided infavour of the respondent, therefore, the appellant husband could not be heard to say that an amendment was necessary in that regard. The appellant was well aware of the existence of those facts of the two earlier petitions filed by his wife and about their disposal and the impact they could have on the present proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order of the appellate Court cannot, therefore, be faulted on any of the grounds; and is wholly fair and justified. The petitioner husband has no case either in Law or Equity.
4. Petition dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.