This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 5-3-2004, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 625 of 2003 in O.P. No. 13 of 2003, filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the O.P.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the C.R.P. may be noted, and they run thus:

3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 17.11.1996 as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner and the respondent led conjugal life for some time. Thereafter, some differences arose between them. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 13 of 2003 on the, filed of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, for judicial separation, stating that the respondent wife deserted him in the month of October, 2000.

4. While so, the petitioner filed the present application I.A. No. 625 of 2003 seeking amendment of the prayer and other portions in the contents of the O.P. In effect, by the amendment, the petitioner sought to convert the O.P. filed for judicial separation into O.P. for divorce. He inter alia contended that due to adamant behavior of the respondent, the marriage ties had broken, and as such, he should be permitted to amend the prayer and other portions in the O.P. to seek divorce. The respondent resisted the application for amendment stating that the facts mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition are not correct. According to her, the petitioner himself is responsible for break down of the marital ties between her and the petitioner. The Court below considering the rival contentions, dismissed the amendment application. The said order is assailed in this C.R.P.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The arguments that were advanced before the Court below were reiterated by them.

6. The question that arises for consideration in this C.R.P. is whether the amendment application filed by the petitioner to amend the prayer in the 0.P. from one of judicial separation to one for divorce, can be allowed on facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is just and necessary to look into the relevant provisions the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 10 of the Act, which deals with “judicial separation”, reads as follows:

10. Judicial separation: - (1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.

(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.

8. Section 13 of the Act, which deals with “divorce” reads thus:

13. Divorce: - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife. be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party, -

(i) has, after the solemnization of marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to anot