Jharkhand High Court
Priyanka Kumari @ Punam Kumari @ Punam vs Ravindra Kumar Nayak on 15 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No. 629 of 2024
-----
Priyanka Kumari @ Punam Kumari @ Punam, W/o Ravindra Kumar
Nayak and D/o Shri Laldhan Saw, R/o Village-Sikni, P.O. & P.S.-Rajrappa
Project, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand ... .... Petitioner
Versus
Ravindra Kumar Nayak, S/o Shri Ruplal Saw, R/o Village-Kamlapur,
P.O.-Ponda, P.S.-Kasmar, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... .... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate
Ms. Anita Sinha, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 15.10.2025
1. Petitioner is the defendant and the instant civil misc. petition has been
filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2023 passed in Original Suit No.
308 of 2022 by which the amendment has been allowed for correcting the
provision of law under which the suit was filed.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming the decree of divorce by declaring the
marriage as nullity under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
3. The suit was contested as not maintainable under this provision of law;
however, it was not disputed that the parties were Hindus.
4. Issues were framed and the plaintiff's evidence was closed on
08.06.2023, after which the amendment in the provision of law was
sought by the plaintiff which has been allowed and being aggrieved by
the said order, the instant civil misc. petition has been preferred.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of
law does not constitute the pleading of facts and therefore, will not be
amenable to amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. It is further
submitted that the said amendment has been allowed after
commencement of trial and, therefore, is in violation to proviso to Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC.
6. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, this Court
does not find any merit in the civil misc. petition to interfere with the
2025:JHHC:32201
impugned order in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Law on the scope of interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is settled by catena of judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is to confine and to keep the Trial Court
within bounds of jurisdiction, to see that there was no violation of
principle of natural of justice, or for the ends of substantial justice.
7. As stated above, this is not in dispute that both the parties are Hindus
and therefore, it is the Hindu Marriage Act that will be applicable in the
matter. The original suit was also filed for declaration of nullity of
marriage, but under the Special Marriage Act, and by amendment only
the provision of law has been corrected. When the facts are not in dispute
with regard to application of the Hindu Marriage Act, suit could not have
been allowed to proceed under the wrong provision of law. The
Amendment in effect did not introduce any new fact so as to cause
prejudice to the defendant.
8. In this view of the matter, this civil misc. petition is wholly frivolous and
without any reasonable basis.
Accordingly, this civil misc. petition is dismissed with cost. The
cost assessed to Rs. 5,000/-.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satyendra
Uploaded
17.10.2025
