SIMRAN NAVNEET WADHWA Vs. NAVNEET A P WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 7/3/2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur whereby the Amendment Application filed by the respondent husband came to be allowed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be conveniently stated thus: The respondent husband has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The divorce is sought on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner herein has filed her reply denying the claims and contentions of the respondent in the said petition. The respondent husband filed an Application for amendment of the said petition so as to inter alia bring on record the facts, which have occurred subsequent to the filing of the said petition (marked as Exh. 26). It appears that the petitioner herein submitted original documents and issued a notice to the respondent husband as regards admission of the documents as also to file a reply to the Application (Exh. 26). The said proceedings, i. e. hearing on the Application (Exh. 26) and the process of admission of the documents were kept on 7/3/2011 and on the said day, were adjourned to 17/3/2011 for hearing. The order-sheet of the said case as annexed to the above petition discloses that on 7/3/2011 there is an endorsement that the case is adjourned to 17/3/2011, however, below the said endorsement, the Court under the heading "later on" seems to have passed an order that the Amendment Application (Exh. 26) is allowed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was labouring under an impression that the hearing had actually be adjourned to 17/3/2011 and, therefore, left the Court carrying an impression that the matter had been adjourned. However, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent husband that the petitioner had assured the Court that affidavit-in-reply to the said Application (Exh. 26) would be tendered later on in the course of day and the Court, therefore, waited till 4.30 p. m. and seeing that no affidavit-in-reply was forthcoming from the petitioner, had allowed the said Application (Exh. 26) by passing an order by qualifying it as "later on".