Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2). The petitioners have submitted an application for impleading state as party.

(3). It appears that the petitioners inadvertently did not implead the State of Rajasthan as party and now is seeking to implead it as party. The petitioner inadvertently impleaded the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, who is District Collector, Sri Ganganagar also, as party by name instead of impleading the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and District Collector, Sri Ganganagar as party and also failed to implead the State of Rajasthan as party. However, reply has already been filed by the Officer-in-charge of the State Government through Dy. Government Advocate, therefore, the application for impleading State as party is allowed. Amended cause title, which has already been filed, is taken on record. At the request for learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard as the pleadings are complete.

(4). The petitioner No. 2 was residing in Canada and she was married. She obtained a decree for divorce from Supreme Court of British Columbia and for which a certificate has been issued on 6.10.2004.

(5). The petitioner No. 2 contracted second marr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document