AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri Sajjad Hussain, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent.
By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia in HMP No. 17/2004 below Exh.22 dated 24th October, 2005, thereby rejecting the application of the present petitioner for amendment of the Hindu Marriage petition.
The petitioner has filed petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. The ground raised in the said petition is that the respondent-wife was suffering from epilepsy and due to attacks of epilepsy, her behaviour used to be abnormal and that would adversely affect the children of the petitioner from his first wife. After filing of the petition, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the Hindu Marriage petition. By way of said amendment, the petitioner also sought declaration that the marriage which took place between the petitioner and the respondent on 8th June, 2003 was null and void. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
Heard Shri Girish Bapat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sajjad Hussain, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Shri Girish Bapat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner only presses amendment by way of paragraph 3(A) and not rest of the grounds.
Shri Sajjad Hussain, the learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that by way of present amendment, the petitioner is now changing the entire cause of action. However, perusal of paragraph 3(A) would show that the averments made in the said paragraph would not change the cause of action. By way of the said paragraph, the petitioner is only amplifying the case for which foundation is already there in the main petition.
In that view of matter, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24th October, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The application of the present petitioner below Exh.22 is allowed to the extent that the amendment in so far as paragraph 3(A) is concerned. Rule is accordingly made absolutely in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.