Smt. Meena vs Mohan Lal

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent.

The husband filed an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In the alternate, the husband prayed that a decree of divorce u/s 13 of the Act be granted. During the pendency, since the respondent was not responding before the Family Court, the husband filed an application for deleting the prayer u/s 9 of the Act. The said application was ultimately allowed by the impugned order. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the deletion of the prayer for restitution of the conjugal right, has filed the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has filed her written statement, in which, she has made a specific averment that she is now willing to reside with her husband and, consequently, the trial court, without considering this aspect, has wrongly allowed the amendment application and has wrongly deleted the prayer for restitution of the conjugal right.

In my opinion, the deletion of the prayer for restitution of the conjugal rights would make no difference in the ultimate analysis. The Family court can always, at any stage, direct the parties to meditate and enter into a settlement and, if such mediation proves successful, the application for divorce would fail and, the parties would go and reside together happily. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the petitioner to challenge the order allowing the amendment application.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner could always ask the Family Court to initiate the conciliation proceedings. If such an application is made, the Family Court will address on that issue.