Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Satya Pal v. Smt. Geeta Devi - WRIT - C No. 24069 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8817 (2 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


           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filed two more applications under the same provisions being No. 18 of 1991 and 170 of 1991, which were dismissed as withdrawn  and in default respectively and these facts on the record by this amendment  were for it was necessary  for  effective disposal of the case.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.

Dt: 2.5.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.