ANITA Vs. RAJIV GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is wife's revision petition against the order of the ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, allowing the husband's application for amending the petition for divorce. The husband had filed the petition for divorce on various grounds including the one that the wife had been committing illicit intercourse with Respondent No. 2 before and after the marriage. The ld. Addl. District and Sessions Judge while allowing the application has held that the purport of the amendments is only to give specific instances and details in regard to the allegations. The said order is challenged before me by the wife submitting that the cause of action has been changed that the application is delayed and the amendment was in violation of R. 7(g) of the rules framed by the High Court under Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The ld. Addl. District and Sessions Judge has quoted in his order the original averments and the averments which are sought by way of the amendment. I agree with the Addl. District and Sessions Judge that the amendments do not seek a new ground or a new relief but only furnish additional particulars and details. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the original petition the predecessor of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge had framed an issue, namely, whether the Respondent No. 1 had committed illicit sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2 before the marriage and also since after the marriage ? If so, its effect ? I do not think that the application is so belated as to be thrown out. The husband is still under cross-examination and the evidence of the wife is still to start. The wife will have full opportunity to deny the allegations through additional written statement, to cross-examine the husband and to put forward her own version in her own evidence. Thus no prejudice would be caused to the wife. The next submission on behalf of the wife is that R. 7(g) of the rules mentioned above is mandatory and that the particulars such as, name, occupation, place of residence and specified acts of sexual intercourse and the occasions should be stated at the first instance when the petition is filed. The ld. Addl. District and Sessions Judge had found this provision as merely suggestive of the particulars to be stated in the petition and is not a mandatory requirement of law. To my mind the question need not be resolved on the basis as to whether the requirement is mandatory or directory. There is nothing new in the provisions of the said rule. It is always requirement of every plaint in a normal suit to state all the material facts with the names, dates and the specific occasions giving rise to a cause of action. In fact the provision of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, is a stricter provision than the said R. 7(g) referred to by the counsel for the wife. Even then in appropriate cases the Courts have permitted the amendments even if there is no change in the cause of action or relief. The reason is obvious. The parties to the original proceedings should be given liberal opportunity to put forward their entire case so that all the controversies are disposed of with full opportunities to both sides in one go. If the stage of the amendment is very late then the same can be compensated by directing the payment of costs but injustice or miscarriage of justice should not be continued simply because the application for amendment is moved at a late stage. As stated earlier, in the present case the evidence of the petitioner himself is yet to be completed.

(3.) There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Civil Revision is, therefore, dismissed.