INDIRA KHURANA Vs. PREM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.Indira Khurana was married to resondent Mr.Prem Prakash. From this wedlock they have been blessed with two daughters. Relations between the parties became strained as a result the petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. This petition was listed as HMA.No.338/94. During the pendency of that petition, respondent filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He sought custody of the children for two hours every day and also for certain days. He further sought the custody for a period of three weeks commencing from 10th June,1994 or in the alternative their custody so that they could tour to the Western India including Bombay and Goa besides claiming other relief and visitation rights. He also filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court. However, after talking to the children this Court did not grant the relief, in the meantime, his petition became infructuous. He accordingly withdrew his Habeas Corpus petition. The present petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Guardians & Wards Act,1890 (in short the Act) for her being appointed as guardian of both the daughters, namely, Radhika and Nitika. In that application, she also sought temporary custody of the person of the children to be with her. That application was contested by the respondent. The Court after getting the pleadings completed listed the application for arguments. While her application was pending, the petitioner herein wanted additional facts to be brought on record which she had already placed by way of her application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code in reply to the respondent's application under Section 26 of H.M.Act. That application is still pending.

(2.) On 22nd May,1996 the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. She wanted to place on record the facts which came to her knowledge only on 21st May,1996. Her application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code was rejected vide order dated 22nd May,1996 on the ground that it was not maintainable; that the petitioner had not furnished which part of the petition required addition or substitution; that she had knowledge of these facts as per her owning in her affidavit filed on record, hence contents of her application were misleading, case was listed for petitioner's evidence subject to payment of costs on 5th July,1996.

(3.) That the respondent also filed applications on 24th May,1996 and on 27th May,1996 respectively for correction of the order of 22nd May,1996. On 31st May,1996 by the impugned order, the corrections sought by the respondent were allowed. That in the meantime, the case was listed for petitioner's evidence. On account of no fault of her the case had been adjourned on few dates. Case was listed on 5th July,1996 for her evidence on which date the Trial Court closed her evidence arbitrarily. She has felt aggrieved against all the three orders hence this revision.