NANDINI Vs. SANJIV S O BIRSEN AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision the applicant Nandini, who is the wife of the non-applicant Sanjiv Birsen Ahuja, prayed for quashing the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 19th January, 1988 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 176 of 1986 rejecting the application Exh. 64.

(2.) The non-applicant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce against the applicant-his wife, on the allegations that she had adulterous relations with one Anil Jaydayal Taneja; who is the husband of the sister of the applicant. That petition is being resisted by the applicant by filling a detailed written statement. The applicant in para 13 of the written statement contended that in the marriage the non-applicant has been able to gain handsome amounts and also received attractive and costly presents, the list of which would be filed in due course. During the pendency of the petition an application (Exh. 64) was moved by the applicant stating therein that the non-applicant has contravened Rule 4(1)(h) [sic (g)]of the Hindu Marriage & Divorce, Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) framed by the Bombay High Court under sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act by not disclosing in the petition the particulars relating to property mentioned in section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the petition filed by the non-applicant should be dismissed.

(3.) The non-applicant filed his reply inter alia contending that the provisions of Rule 4(i)(h) of the Rules framed by the High Court is only directory and not mandatory. His further contention was that section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for disposal of the property jointly owned by the applicant, and the non-applicant. Since there is no property as contemplated by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same was not mentioned in the petition. According to the non-applicant, the application was frivolous and the petition was maintainable.