VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 26.7.2011 passed upon application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., whereby, the application filed by the petitioner wife is rejected.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, the respondent-husband filed divorce petition against the petitioner, in which, a written-statement was filed by the petitioner-wife in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu). After filing the written statement, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner to incorporate following para in the written statement which reads as under : JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image1.jpg That now the parties have arrived at a settlement in relation to all the issues between them and the applicant does not wish the prosecution of appellant-Mukesh in the matter and has compromised all her disputes with the appellant Mukesh as well as her in-laws' JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image2.jpg JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image3.jpg The above amendment was felt necessary for proper adjudication because Mukesh Kumar, brother of petitioner's husband committed offence under Section 376, read with Section 120B, I.P.C. against her, for which, a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 3.5.2007. In that case, after due investigation, challan was filed and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh vide judgment dated 28.11.2007 convicted Mukesh Kumar under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 7 years. Against that judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Mukesh Kumar filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 988/2007 before this Court. During the pendency of the divorce petition and criminal appeal filed by accused Mukesh Kumar, entire matter was settled and petitioner submitted an application under Section 320, Cr.P.C. As per the settlement, respondent husband was to withdraw the divorce petition so as to restart the matrimonial life; but, when the husband did not withdraw the divorce petition, then, the petitioner moved application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., so as to incorporate the subsequent events in the written-statement. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application filed by he petitioner for amendment in the written-statement vide order dated 6.7.2011 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues that the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement is totally illegal and perverse because, on the one hand, assurance was given to the petitioner that she may compromise the criminal matter against brother-in-law Mukesh Kumar and, thereafter, the divorce petition will be withdrawn by the respondent husband. But, when the divorce petition filed by the respondent husband was not withdrawn, then, the only course was left with the petitioner to seek amendment in the written statement for apprising the court with the subsequent events which is necessary for adjudication of the controversy. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court observed in the impugned order that dispute in the divorce petition is in between husband Dharampal and wife Manju Devi and compromise with Mukesh Kumar has no relevance nor husband Dharampal can be insisted upon to withdraw the - divorce petition because the petitioner has compromised the criminal mater with Mukesh Kumar, therefore, the trial Court wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner while giving the above reason.;