Sarah Sharma vs Parameswaran B

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-wife. He submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 6th April, 2021, whereby his client's application for amendment was rejected. He submits, his client made errors in the petition. It was for restitution of conjugal rights. The correction is what was sought by amendment.

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite-husband, he submits the petition was made for divorce. His client filed written statement along with counter claim. His client also wants divorce. By the amendment petition, the divorce petition was sought to be changed to one for restitution of conjugal rights. It is a diametrically opposite contention and correctly rejected by the Family Court.

Prima facie, it appears to Court petitioner-wife filed petition for divorce in haste. The act angered the husband, who filed written statement and counter claim for divorce. Counter claim because the husband obviously denies the allegations but wants divorce. The wife regrets and hence the amendment petition.

This writ petition is disposed of with direction upon the Family Court to prevail upon the parties for conciliation, to be together, if possible. Court is confident that conciliation will succeed. In event, it does not, the Family Court may proceed with adjudication on the basis of wife's petition not carrying a prayer.

Based on impression of Court as aforesaid and for ends of justice, impugned order is set aside. The Family Court will reconsider the amendment application, in event parties fail to reconcile.

With above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

........................................