ARUNA SURESH, J. 1. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 13th July, 2009 rejecting her application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petition.

2. Mr.Parinay D.Shah, counsel for the petitioner has argued that Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application observing that in para-12 of the petition, petitioner has pleaded subsequent events which arose after dismissal of the first petition filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act?) and that the subsequent events as detailed in para-12 were not covered under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC?).

3. Mr. P. Norula, counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that his second petition seeking divorce is maintainable as in para-12 he has narrated subsequent events which arose after dismissal of the first petition. He has emphasized on sub-para (iv), grounds f? and h? of para-12 of the petition that certain acts of cruelty were committed by the respondent even after dismissal of the first petition and therefore, this petition is maintainable. H