L KEERTHI Vs. ASHOK YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2017, passed by the III Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-husband under Order VI Rule 17, r/w Section 151 of CPC, for amending the divorce petition.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioner and the respondent were married on 012012 according to the Hindu rites and customs. According to the respondent-husband, the petitioner-wife had stayed with him only for a period of three months. According to him, initially, she left the matrimonial home on 29.03.2013, and finally, on 26.06.2013. Therefore, the respondent-husband was constrained to file a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act ('the Act', for short). The petitioner filed her objection and denied the averments made in the plaint. In order to establish his case, the respondent-husband examined himself as witness, and submitted seven documents. Similarly, the petitioner-wife also examined herself as a witness, and submitted few documents to support her case. After the evidence of both sides were closed, and the case was listed for final arguments, the respondent-husband filed an application for amending the plaint inter alia on the ground that during the cross-examination of the petitioner, she revealed certain facts with regard to her health, which were unknown to the respondent. According to the respondent-husband, he came to know for the first time that the petitioner was suffering from epilepsy, both prior to and subsequent to her marriage. Therefore, he wanted to amend the plaint, and to claim that since the petitioner's health condition was unknown to him, and it was neither revealed by the petitioner, nor by her family members, therefore, a fraud was played on him. Secondly, since she has deserted the respondent, he wanted to amend the plaint. The petitioner filed her objections to the said application. However, by the impugned order, the application was allowed. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Achappa P. B., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following submissions before this Court:-