RUPALI BADKATTE Vs. SACHIN BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order 5.8.2013, (Ann. P-3) and 16.8.2013, (Ann. P-4) passed by the Ist Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 162-A/12, whereby by first order, (Ann. P-3) after expiry of 90 days from the service of the notice of suit, her right to file W.S. has been closed and by the subsequent order ( Ann. P-4) her application filed for taking annexed W.S. on record has been dismissed, as the same was filed barred by limitation and contrary to such earlier order, (Ann. P-3).

(2.) Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments advanced, after perusing the record alongwith the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed but subject to payment of some costs to other side.

(3.) True it is that after receiving the summon of the impugned petition filed under Section 13 (1) (i) (a) on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, (in short "The Act") for divorce on the grounds of cruelty within 90 days inspite taking various adjournments, W.S. was not filed on behalf of the petitioner, on which vide order dated 5.8.2013, her right to file the W.S. was closed. Subsequent to that alongwith an application with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the W.S. was placed before the Family Court but on consideration such application was dismissed and pursuant to that W.S. was not taken on record.