LAWS(MAD)-1995-7-95

THAMILARASI Vs. R VELUMURUGAN

Decided On July 19, 1995
THAMILARASI Appellant
V/S
R VELUMURUGAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife, who is the respondent in H. M. O. P. No. 2 of 1992 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, filed by the husband for divorce under Sections 12 (1) (a), (Marriage not consummated owing to impotence and 13 (1) (ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act has preferred this civil revision petition against the order in I. A. No. 12 of 1994, allowing the husband's petition for amending the above said original petition.

(2.) THE original H. M. O. P. was filed mainly on the ground that there has been no consummation between the spouses because of certain alleged disorders in the health of the respondent, particularly in relation to her vaginal canal. Now, the amendment sought for is for adding mainly the following paragraph, after paragraph 6 of the original petition:- 'the respondent is not of very good character. Even before marriage with this petitioner she was having illicit intimacy with her close relative whose name is Raju. THE respondent really wanted to marry raju, but her parents compelled her to marry this petitioner. This is also another reason for non-cohabitation of the respondent. Now after deserting this petitioner the respondent is now living in adultery with the said Raju. Since the respondent and Raju are living as husband and wife, it becomes impossible for her to live with the petitioner.' No doubt, consequential amendment is also sought for in the cause of action paragraph of the petition.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. In Dhanapal v. Govindaraja AIR 1961 Madras 262 (relied on learned counsel for respondent) it has been held, no doubt with reference to an amendment of plaint in a title suit, as follows: 'it is permissible for the plaintiffs to set up as many roots of title as possible and sometimes they may even be mutually conflicting and inconsistent'. Though this conclusion was in relation to an amendment asked for in a title suit, I do not see any special reason for not coming to a similar conclusion in a similar amendment asked for in a matrimonial action of the present kind.