Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants. The applicants Sandeep Gehlot and Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Vijeta who is daughter of Pukhraj Parihar and Smt. Anandi Devi were married, according to Hindu Rites on 17.02.2004 but as the marriage did not succeed both the parties resorted to seek dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by agreement. They jointly moved an application to seek a decree to that affect before the Family Court, Jodhpur. The said application was accepted by the Family Court vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.
(2.) AFTER passing of the decree, an application has been moved for making correction in the description of name of wife which was stated in the joint application as Smt. Vijeta W/o Sandeep Gehlot and Daughter of Pukhraj Parihar stated that the name of wife would be correctly described as Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Vijeta W/o Sandeep Gehlot and D/o Pukhraj Parihar and to seek consequential amendment in decree. This application was also moved jointly by husband and wife and is supported by affidavit of the father of girl that the maidan name of his daughter seeking the decree of dissolution of marriage was Vijay Laxmi but due to insistence for change of name by the family members of husband, she was Christened as Vijeta by her husband's family in the marriage card she was so described. It is for that reason the joint application was moved in the name of Sandeep and Vijeta. But correct name of wife at her parent's house and others record was Vijay Laxmi. In support of this plea, the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan showing Ms. Vijay Laxmi as daughter of Sri Pukhraj Parihar and Smt. Anandi Devi was also placed on record. The necessity of this alteration was felt by the parties because of post divorce complication when the divorced wife sought an employment under the State as divorcee. While her qualification certificate showed her name as Vijay Laxmi, her divorce papers showed her name to be Vijeta. This discrepancy apparently came in the way of considering the wife's case for priority as a divorced wife. The application was rejected by the Family Court, Jodhpur by relying on the strict rule of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) WE are of the opinion that while general principles of Procedure may apply to the Family Court, the Code of Civil Procedure in terms do not apply. From the fact that the application for dissolution of marriage was moved jointly and the application for amendment in the description of wife's name in the decree was also moved jointly by the erstwhile husband and wife alongwith affidavit of father, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments in that application and to bring the decree in accord with ground reality. Correction/amendment ought to have been granted. There could have been no other possible way to remove this discrepancy.;