Bombay High Court
Parikshit S/O Sudarshan Dahale vs Smt. Preeti W/O. Parihshit Dahale on 26 September, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp2552.16.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2552 OF 2016
Parikshit s/o Sudarshan Dahale,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Service, R/o C/o Sachin
Galgale, 31, Vidya Nagar,
Near Kali Mata Mandir,
Nagpur-9. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
Smt. Preeti w/o Parikshit Dahale,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Teacher, R/o 2nd Floor,
Jain Apartment, Panchdeep Nagar,
Wardha Road, Nagpur-440015. ....... RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ved Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri B.L. Borikar, Advocate for Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th SEPTEMBER, 2016.
DATE: 26
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The Family Court has rejected the application at Exhibit-13
for amendment of the petition filed under Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for judicial separation. The court has held that though, the
wp2552.16.J.odt 2/4
grounds for judicial separation and divorce are the same, the effect of
judicial separation is different from that of the divorce. It further holds
that in separation, only the parties reside separately from each other,
however, the marital tie remains in force. That is not the case in case of
divorce. The court has held that though the grounds of both the reliefs
are same in nature, considering the consequences and effects, it would
change the nature of the proceeding if the amendment is allowed.
The application for amendment is therefore, rejected.
3] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, I have gone through the contents of the application filed under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation and also the
contents of the application for amendment. No doubt that the effect of
the decree for judicial separation is different from that for the divorce.
The Family Court has held that the cruelty is the ground mentioned in
the petition under Section 10 for judicial separation. The amendment
proposed brings on record the subsequent events aggravating the cruelty
which has induced the petition to claim a relief of divorce on the ground
of cruelty. The notices were issued and parties were served and
immediately thereafter, the application for amendment was filed.
Though, the original petition has been styled as one under Section 10 of
the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation, the averments clearly
make out a case of cruelty said to have been made by the respondent in
wp2552.16.J.odt 3/4
the petition. In such event, the Family Court has committed an error in
rejecting the application for amendment of the petition on the ground
that it would change the entire nature of the proceeding. The impugned
order cannot therefore, be sustained.
4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
10.03.2016 passed below Exhibit-13 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The application at Exhibit-13 is allowed. The amendment be carried out
within a period of two weeks from today from the first appearance of the
parties before the Family Court.
JUDGE
NSN
wp2552.16.J.odt 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 29.09.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
