SIDHARTH PARIKH Vs. TARAMANI PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29/11/2013 passed in case No. 241-A/2012 (HMA) by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, whereby, the application preferred under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code ( hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent were married on 18/11/2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, the respondent went to her paternal house at Ganjbasoda, but did not return back to her matrimonial home. The petitioner tried his level best to get her back to his house, but she refused for the reasons best known to her. As a consequence, the petitioner has filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity, 'HMA') before the Family Court, Gwalior. The counseling failed and since there was no hope of the respondent coming back and living with the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application under section 13 of HMA before the Family Court at Gwalior.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of certain subsequent development which could not be raised in the petition under section 13 of HMA, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed for amendment in the petition under section 13 of HMA, but no proceedings i.e. no evidence was adduced by the parties in the case and the case was at preliminary stage. The trial had not commenced. The petitioner had moved two applications under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The respondent has filed reply to this application stating therein that no proper reason has been assigned for such amendment.