PARVESH RANI Vs. RAJ KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Parvesh Rani has filed this revision petition against the order dated 14/07/1992 of Shri K.P. Verma, Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which her application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the written statement in a petition for divorce by her husband, Raj Kishan, respondent herein has been dismissed.

(2.) SmtParvesh Rani (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') filed a petition for divorce against Raj Kishan, respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act'). This petition was filed on 06/05/1983. In pursuance of a notice issued by the Court the husband appeared to contest the proceedings. The petition came up before the Court on 08/07/1983 when the wife withdrew her petition for divorce. However, the husband filed a reply-cum-counter claim in the said petition seeking disoslution of his marriage with his wife on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Act The counter claim of the husband, thus, became the petition, which was strongly contested by the wife and is pending trial.

(3.) An application dated 29/03/1990 was moved by the wife for amendment of the written statement. Averments made In the application inter alia have been that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings the husband re-married and out of the said wedlock was having a son, aged about three yeas. It was also pleaded that the aforesaid marriage was illegal, having been entered into during the subsistence of his valid marriage with the wife and, thus, wanted this fact to be brought on record. The appliction was opposed by the husband inter alia pleading that the petition was for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the aforesaid averment with regard to the remarriage of the husband was irrelevant and not material for the decision of the petition. It was also pleaded that this fact could have no bearing nor could it be said that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong. The learned Trial Court after hearing arguments dismissed this application vide the impugned order