PATNA HIGH COURT
V. Nath, J.
Pramiti Bose —Appellant
versus
Kabir Shankar Bose —Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.300 of 2017
Decided on 15.3.2017
Result: Application allowed.
V. Nath, J.—Heard Mr. J.S.Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. W. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Questioning the legal sustainability of the impugned order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Matrimonial Case No.43 of 2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna allowing the amendment of the pleadings as prayed on behalf of the husband petitioner of the said case, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the wife-opposite party of the said case.
3. With the consent of the parties, the present application is being disposed of at this stage.
4. As the factual matrix would undrape, the husband as petitioner filed a petition (H.M.A. No. 834 of 2015) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, seeking divorce. The wife-opposite party therein filed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1988/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 25.11.2016, the Hon’ble Court directed the transfer of the H.M.A. No. 834 of 2015 to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna with further direction to dispose of the same by the end of March 2017 and to intimate the factum of disposal to the registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna was also directed to fix the date of hearing on a Saturday as well even if it was a clearance day and if the Saturday was a Holiday then to fix the matter on Wednesday or Thursday. After the transfer, the said case has been numbered as Matrimonial Case No.43/2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
5. On 28.01.2017, a copy of the amendment petition seeking amendments in the main petition of the matrimonial case, apparently filed on 05.01.2016 by the husband-petitioner therein, was served upon the wife-opposite party. The rejoinder was filed by the wife-opposite party on 04.02.2017 and ultimately by the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, after hearing the parties, the learned court below has allowed the prayer for amendments in the main petition of the matrimonial case, as prayed.
6. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to briefly take into notice the averments and the reliefs prayed by the husband-petitioner in his petition seeking divorce (Annexure-P/1). It has been averred therein that after three years of courtship, the petitioner and the respondent were married on 18.11.2010. After medical assistance, the wife conceived and gave birth to a male child on 14.04.2014. The couple lived together till 20.04.2015 on which date it has been alleged that the wife petitioner deserted the husband respondent. After describing the conduct and behavior of the wife petitioner in detail in the main petition (Annexure-P/1), the husband –respondent has prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1((i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty .
7. By filing the amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., the husband-petitioner has sought to amend the prayer clause of the main divorce petition and has also sought to incorporate further statements of facts as paragraph-36(a) to 36(e) in the main petition. It would be transparent from the amendment petition (Annexure-P/3) that the husband–petitioner has sought to amend the prayer clause seeking to insert the relief for a decree of annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of fraud as the main relief, and the relief for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty has been sought to be made the alternative relief in the matrimonial case. It further appears from the amendment petition that the husband respondent by proposing to insert paragraph 36(a) to 36(e) has sought to introduce the fact that the wife-opposite party was suffering from a condition called Pelvic Inflammatory Diseas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.