Kailas Dagadu Rozodkar vs Priya Kailas Rozodkar @ Priya ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1865 Bom

                                             1                   WP-1982.15.doc


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                             
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1982 OF 2015




                                                    
     Kailash s/o Dagadu Rozodkar
     Age 40 years, occup. Service,
     R/o Chinawal, Tq. Raver




                                       
     Dist. Jalgaon                                    .. Petitioner


              versus
                             
                            
     Priya w/o Kailas Rozodkar, alias
     Priya Bhaskar Dambare,
     age 31 years, occup. service,
      

     r/o c/o Bhaskar Chindhu Dambare,
     Plot No. 12, Moreshwar Nagar,
   



     Ganganagar, Yawal, Tq. Yawal,
     Dist. Jalgaon                                    .. Respondent
              -------





     Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for respondent





                                   CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                   DATE :        26TH APRIL, 2016


     ORAL JUDGMENT:


     1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.         Heard the parties

     finally, by consent.





                                           2                    WP-1982.15.doc

2. After the petition is filed by present petitioner bearing

Hindu Marriage Petition No. 125 of 2014 for divorce on the

ground of cruelty, some events have occurred as have been

referred to in the application Exhibit - 25 filed by present

petitioner seeking amendment of said divorce petition. Said

application is rejected under impugned order dated 15-12-2014

by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhusawal.

3. After hearing learned counsel for parties, the position

emerges that as far as occurrence of events is concerned, there

does not appear to be any serious dispute over the same. It is

also not in dispute that application Exhibit-25 had been moved

well before the stage of evidence had reached in the matter.

While seeking amendments pursuant to occurrence of events,

certain comments/ allegations/averments have been made in

the corresponding amendments sought with reference to the

events.

4. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhusawal, while

deciding Exhibit-25 under impugned order, appears to have

considered that there is no finding of any court of law that the

complaints / allegations are false and that the amendments

would change entire foundation of petition on which relief is

claimed, however, generally the courts are supposed to be liberal

3 WP-1982.15.doc

while it comes to grant of amendments sought. In present

petition in order to support final relief being claimed in the

proceedings, its correctness or otherwise would not be a test

while considering application for amendments.

5. In the circumstances, application deserves to be allowed.

Application under Exhibit - 25 stands allowed. Impugned order

is set aside.

6.

In view of aforesaid, an amount of Rs.10,000/- directed to

be deposited under the orders of this court would be refunded to

the present petitioner, if it is not already withdrawn by either of

the parties. In case, it has been so withdrawn, no dispute over

the same be raised hereafter.

7. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd