Vinod Kumar Asawa Vs. Smt. Sumita Asawa and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderkrishna saran shrivastav, j.1. heard the learned counsel of the petitioner. none appears for the respondents.2. the petitioner-husband filed a petition for divorce against the 1st respondent-defendant on the ground of cruelty. it was alleged that the respondent has left the matrimonial home on 10-1-1994 and thereafter, has been staying away from the petitioner and has deserted him. during the pendency of the proceedings, two years have passed. the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the petition on the ground that he may be permitted to amend the petition by taking additional ground of desertion for divorce because by 10-1-1996 two years have passed and this subsequent event should be taken notice of. the 1st respondent resisted the petition,3. the trial court rejected the petition on the ground that the day on which the petition was filed, the desertion was for less than two years and after passing of the two years in case the proposed amendment is allowed, it may relate back to the date of filing the petition. therefore, the new ground of divorce cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the original petition.4. feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner-husband has preferred this revision. it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the petition for divorce, the petitioner wants to take additional ground of desertion for divorce because two years have lapsed from the date when the 1st respondent had left the matrimonial house. the relief remains that of divorce. the subsequent event cannot be left out of consideration. it is pertinent to note that in the original petition, it was alleged that the 1st respondent had deserted her husband, but because the period of two years did not lapse, that ground could not be taken. the proposed amendment appears to be necessary in order to decide the controversy between the parties once for all. it may also avoid multiplicity of divorce petitions.5. for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside.6. in result, the impugned order, whereby the application for amendment is dismissed, is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of rs. 200/- to the 1st respondent. the petitioner shall incorporate the proposed amendment within a period of 15 days from today. the 1st respondent shall be at liberty to make consequential amendment in her written statement. however, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. the revision petition is thus finally disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner-husband filed a petition for divorce against the 1st respondent-defendant on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged that the respondent has left the matrimonial home on 10-1-1994 and thereafter, has been staying away from the petitioner and has deserted him. During the pendency of the proceedings, two years have passed. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the petition on the ground that he may be permitted to amend the petition by taking additional ground of desertion for divorce because by 10-1-1996 two years have passed and this subsequent event should be taken notice of. The 1st respondent resisted the petition,

3. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the day on which the petition was filed, the desertion was for less than two years and after passing of the two years in case the proposed amendment is allowed, it may relate back to the date of filing the petition. Therefore, the new ground of divorce cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the original petition.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner-husband has preferred this revision. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the petition for divorce, the petitioner wants to take additional ground of desertion for divorce because two years have lapsed from the date when the 1st respondent had left the matrimonial house. The relief remains that of divorce. The subsequent event cannot be left out of consideration. It is pertinent to note that in the original petition, it was alleged that the 1st respondent had deserted her husband, but because the period of two years did not lapse, that ground could not be taken. The proposed amendment appears to be necessary in order to decide the controversy between the parties once for all. It may also avoid multiplicity of divorce petitions.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside.

6. In result, the impugned order, whereby the application for amendment is dismissed, is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/- to the 1st respondent. The petitioner shall incorporate the proposed amendment within a period of 15 days from today. The 1st respondent shall be at liberty to make consequential amendment in her written statement. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The revision petition is thus finally disposed of.