Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Pal vs Smt. Chandrakiran Pal on 4 January, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 4th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2191 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH PAL S/O SHRI RAMESH PAL, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
173, SOMNATH KI JUNI CHAAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RADHE SHYAM YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
SMT. CHANDRAKIRAN PAL W/O SHRI
RAJESH PAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TEACHER 287, SHANTI
NAGAR, NEAR IDEAL SCHOOL, MHOW
GAON (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
.....................................................................................................................................
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1] The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.2.2022 passed by
the Principal Judge Family Court, Indore in HMA Case No.1556/2019
whereby the petitioner/plaintiff's application filed under Order 6 Rule
17 of the C.P.C. for amendment in the pleadings has been rejected.
2] Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein has filed a
case for divorce against the respondent-wife and the evidence is still
to be led in the case.
3] The case of the petitioner is that on 10.1.2020, when the matter
was fixed before the trial court for reconciliation the defendant-wife
although agreed to reside with the petitioner however, no sooner she
got out of the court premises she started abusing the petitioner and has
also alleged that her two daughters are of her own and the petitioner is
an imported person and as she cannot stay with the petitioner any
more. After hearing this, the petitioner filed his application for
amendment in the trial court on 19.2.2020 with the aforesaid
pleadings and also pleading that since according to the
respondent/defendant/wife, their daughters are not the daughters of
the petitioner and has also stated that in such circumstances the
D.N.A. test is also necessary.
4] The aforesaid applicant has been opposed by the respondent/wife
denying all the allegations made in the application for amendment and
has specifically denied the averments therein, in toto.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge of
the Family court has erred in rejecting the application despite the fact
that the amendments sought were not related to the incident
subsequent to filing of the divorce petition and would be necessary for
proper adjudication of the divorce petition.
7] In support of his submission, Shri Yadav has relied upon the
decision rendered by this Court in the cases of Madhvi Sharma vs.
Pushpendra Sharma reported in 2014(1) MPLJ 346 and S. Malla vs.
Future Build. Co-operative Housing Society and others reported as
2014 (1) M.P.L.J. 318
8] Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
9] In the present case although earlier the notices were issued on
20.6.2022 and the petitioner was directed to serve the respondent
through the trial court but the petitioner has failed to serve the notice
as directed by this Court and today also Shri Radheshyam Yadav,
counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time to serve the
respondent/wife. But on perusal of the record, this Court has
requested Shri Yadav to argue the matter on merit. And, thus, after
due consideration of his submission and on perusal of the record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is
made out as the aforesaid amendment sought by the petitioner appears
to be an afterthought and would also amount to redressing back of
certain averments of the plaint which has also been held by the
learned Judge of the trial court in rejecting the petitioner's application
and in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality or
irregularity has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial court
in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule
17 of the CPC. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition being devoid
of merit is hereby dismissed.
The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner are
distinguishable on facts and are of no use to the petitioner.
The learned Judge of the Family Court is also requested to
expedite the matter.
Certificate copy, as per rules.
( SUBHODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
Digitally signed by MONI RAJU
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya
MONI RAJU
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=6fb601f03d4083a3289219d85392bac3bde1be8a5
3bd80aeba7af5a5244844c1,
pseudonym=85E21E23646B47526A49E99D9182D0AE8AB
D62D1,
serialNumber=3BFD07BEC0C790E4AEA8CB122D629549D1
067813B2AE8FB016F1BF08EE881126, cn=MONI RAJU
Date: 2023.01.07 14:19:06 +05'30'
