Parveen Bagga vs Surinder Pal Bagga
1999 Latest Caselaw 942 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 35/1984 allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking for amendment of the petition.

2. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent for dissolution of the marriage seeking for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty committed by the petitioner. The said petition was contested by the respondent. On 19.9.1988 an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was filed by the respondent herein seeking for amendment of the petition seeking to add certain more facts constituting cruelty which allegedly had taken place after the filing of the divorce petition i.e. on 6.6.1984, 13.10.1984 and in August, 1984.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in the original application under Order 6, Rule 17, the date of 13.10.1984 was mentioned as 13.10.1983. Subsequently, however, an application was filed by the respondent seeking to rectify the typographical mistake committed in mentioning the date as 13.10.1983 in place of 13.10.1984. It appears to me that there was a typographical mistake in mentioning the aforesaid date. The application for addition of more facts of cruelty was contested by the petitioner herein and after hearing the parties, the Trial Court allowed the amendment holding that such amendments are necessary for just and proper decision of the case. It is contended by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendments, if allowed, would amount to taking up contradictory pleas and that if the same are allowed the same would permit the respondent to fill up the lacunae.

4. I have considered the records available before me.

5. What the respondent seeks to incorporate through the amendment are certain facts constituting cruelty which allegedly had taken place after filing of the divorce petition. The date 13.10.1984 was incorrectly typed in the original amendment application as 13.10.1983 and the same fact is also mentioned by the Trial Court in her order. Subsequent events can be allowed to be brought in by way of amendments and in my considered opinion, the amendments brought in, if allowed, would not give rise to any contradictory picas to what has already been stated in the petition.

6. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction and the discretion vested in her. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.