Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9.1.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him for deleting certain parts of the affidavit filed by the respondent in her evidence as examination - in - chief or for directing her to file a fresh affidavit, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(i)(ia) and 13(i)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, in which the petitioner led his evidence. In response to the evidence led by the petitioner, the respondent filed her affidavit for her examination-in-chief. It is some of the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent in her examination-inchief, which were objected to by the petitioner by filing the application, which was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit in evidence filed by the respondent by way of her examination-in-chief runs into 73 pages, which contains fictitious and frivolous allegations. The same has been made lengthy just with a view to confuse the petitioner as well as the court, as the respondent cannot be permitted to travel beyond pleadings or level allegations against any of the witnesses produced by the petitioner in his evidence or assail the quality of evidence led by him. The allegations so made against the witnesses produced by the petitioner and the facts stated in the affidavit, which are beyond pleadings, deserve to be struck off at this stage only or the respondent be directed to file a fresh affidavit deleting all those contents. Reliance was placed upon judgment of Kerala High Court in T.K. Gangan Menon v. M/s Bright Credit & [2] Real Estate (P) Ltd. And others (Kerala), 2008(1) RCR 91.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the affidavit filed by the petitioner was quite lengthy as it contained number of allegations against the respondent and she had merely countered the facts stated by the petitioner in his affidavit in evidence in detail. In addition to that, certain facts, which she wanted to narrate, were stated. The same cannot be said to be beyond pleadings as primarily the divorce was sought by the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty and conversion of religion by the respondent. As the pleadings of the petitioner himself were quite lengthy, the respondent had to reply the same back in some detail. Whatever she had stated in her affidavit, the contents thereof can be put to her in her cross- examination and the petitioner is always at liberty to demolish the same. Even if according to the petitioner, some of the facts stated in the affidavit of evidence go beyond pleadings, the evidentiary value thereof will be considered by the court at the time of final decision of the case in accordance with law. Reliance was placed upon Cesar Rego Fernandes & others v. Angela Ninette Oliveira Fernandes & others, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 463 (Bombay).

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. The only legal issue under consideration before this Court is as to whether at the stage for filing of affidavit in examination-in-chief, a party or a witness produced by him/her can be asked to delete certain parts of that affidavit or can a direction be issued to file a fresh affidavit because some of the facts stated therein, in the opinion of the other party, are either beyond pleadings or are argumentative or contains some allegations against the witnesses produced by other party.

7. On the issue, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in T. K. Gangan Menons case (supra), where the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner therein were noticed:

" ... But that does not mean that the witness, party; or otherwise has the freedom to aver all irrelevant matters through the affidavits. The affidavits envisaged by Sub-Rule 1 of Rule