- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Smt. Sudha Chauhan wife of Lt. Col. S. B. S. Chauhan, has filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of order dated 26. 04. 2003, by means of which amendment application moved on behalf of plain tiff-respondent No. 3 has been allowed, and the said order has been subse quently affirmed in Civil Revision on 8. 1. 2004.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Lt. Col. S. B. S. Chauhan has filed suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Said suit has been registered as Suit No. 459 of 1996. In the said suit, petitioner moved an applica tion under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for alimony and litigation expenses. Said application was allowed. Against the said order, appeal was preferred by husband and revision was preferred by wife. Both, the appeal and revision, were consolidated and decided together. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25913 of 1999 was filed by respondent No. 3, wherein this Court had asked the husband to pay Rs. 1. 500/- per month towards pendentelite maintenance and Rs. 3, 000/- as litigation expenses. In the suit for divorce, an application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on 21. 2. 1998 for adding various grounds. Said application was objected to by petitioner by con tending that the nature of the suit would change in case amendment was allowed. Against the objection raised by petitioner rejoinder objection was filed by peti tioner. Thereafter on 26. 4. 2003, said application for amendment was allowed. Revision preferred against the said order met the same fate. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case in earlier proceedings, there was admis sion by respondent husband that petitioner was normal and this plea was avail able to husband at the point of time of filing of original application of divorce, and in view of earlier admission, entire nature of suit would change, as such amend ment ought not to have been allowed.
(3.) FROM the side of respondents, Dr. Om Prakash Yadav, Advocate, appear ing with Smt. Manisha Pandey, Advocate, has contended that nature of suit is not at all going to be changed, as it is suit for divorce and by way of amendment merely certain grounds, and in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings once amendment has been allowed, no interference be made by this Court with such exercise of discretion and jurisdiction. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that suit for divorce was filed by husband on 8. 10. 1996 and the plea taken therein was that for 16 years they had stayed together as wife and husband and after 16 years, the wife started behaving with cruelty and since last four years, they have been living separately, as such a decree of divorce be passed. In the said suit, application seeking amendment was moved on 21. 2. 1998, mentioning therein to add paragraphs 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d and a plea has been sought to be introduced that petitioner was mentally unfit even before the mar riage and the said fact was concealed and after marriage, a lot of treatment had taken place with no change, and it has been contended that as such a situation has arisen, it has become practically impossible to live together. Petitioner sub mits that plea taken in the amendment application is altogether different from the plea taken in the original application for divorce. It has also been specifically stated that there is admission on the part of husband that both husband and wife had lived together peacefully for 16 years, and for this purpose, reference of para graph 30 of written statement filed by husband in earlier proceeding being O. S. No. 729 of 1995, for maintenance, has been made. Said paragraph 30 has been perused. It is true that the averments mentioned therein give different picture, but the same has not to be read in isolation, inasmuch as, in paragraph 32 of the same very written statement, respondent husband has made mention that peti tioner was mentally ill, but he tried to make her happy out of way. Thus, it cannot be said that in earlier statement there was precise admission and the same is sought to resiled. Paragraph 30 has to be read with paragraph 32. Nature of the amendment, which has been sought to be made in the present case, does not change the nature of the suit, inasmuch as divorce Is available to husband and wife on variety of grounds and no limitation has been provided for adding such grounds. In this background, once nature of suit is not going to be changed and same remains the suit for divorce and only certain grounds have been sought to be added, and this plea had already been mentioned in the past in earlier written statement, the view which has been taken by both the courts below, cannot be said to be incorrect view.;