NEENA PAHWA Vs. SUMIT PAHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEENA Pahwa, the petitioner, wife of the respondent Sumit Pahwa, who is in judicial custody at Jail No.6, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10th December, 2012 and 22nd January, 2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA No.422/2011 through Sh.Suresh Kapoor, Pairokar/family friend of the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 10th December, 2012, the application

(2.) FILED by Neena Pahwa, the present petitioner (respondent in the trial Court) under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. After dismissing the said application, the right to file the written statement was also closed in the impugned order dated 22 nd January, 2013. However, by the same order, the application filed by the respondent/husband of the petitioner under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC was also dismissed, as the learned trial Court opined that it is not a fit case where the judgment should follow on account of failure of the petitioner to file the written statement.

(3.) HE states that it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is of an unsound mind. In various paras of the petition, the respondent has referred various incidents and instances in his own petition in this regard, therefore, on the basis of his admission at least, the procedure of Order XXXII CPC has to be complied with before closing the right of the petitioner to file the written statement. Counsel further states that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case an application under Order XXXII CPC is moved before filing of the written statement.