SUDHA CHAUHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Smt. Sudha Chauhan wife of Lt. Col. S. B. S. Chauhan, has filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of order dated 26. 04. 2003, by means of which amendment application moved on behalf of plain tiff-respondent No. 3 has been allowed, and the said order has been subse quently affirmed in Civil Revision on 8. 1. 2004.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Lt. Col. S. B. S. Chauhan has filed suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Said suit has been registered as Suit No. 459 of 1996. In the said suit, petitioner moved an applica tion under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for alimony and litigation expenses. Said application was allowed. Against the said order, appeal was preferred by husband and revision was preferred by wife. Both, the appeal and revision, were consolidated and decided together. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25913 of 1999 was filed by respondent No. 3, wherein this Court had asked the husband to pay Rs. 1. 500/- per month towards pendentelite maintenance and Rs. 3, 000/- as litigation expenses. In the suit for divorce, an application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on 21. 2. 1998 for adding various grounds. Said application was objected to by petitioner by con tending that the nature of the suit would change in case amendment was allowed. Against the objection raised by petitioner rejoinder objection was filed by peti tioner. Thereafter on 26. 4. 2003, said application for amendment was allowed. Revision preferred against the said order met the same fate. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) FROM the side of respondents, Dr. Om Prakash Yadav, Advocate, appear ing with Smt. Manisha Pandey, Advocate, has contended that nature of suit is not at all going to be changed, as it is suit for divorce and by way of amendment merely certain grounds, and in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings once amendment has been allowed, no interference be made by this Court with such exercise of discretion and jurisdiction.