MEERA ASTHANA Vs. RAJENDRANATH ASTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Over a, petty matter, the petitioner, defendant-wife, in a matrimonial proceedings has been required to knock the doors of this Court for the second time. The controversy catching the attention of the trial Court as well as this Court for the moment arises out of applications under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed respectively by the defendant and the plaintiff. Earlier when the wife-petitioner had come up to this Court in C.R. No. 209/92, her application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. calling for rejection of the plaint had been rejected by the trial Court directing her to file the written-statement. Applications seeking amendment of the plaint were also pending. This Court had directed:-

(2.) It appears that the husband non-petitioner filed a suit for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner by a decree of nullity on the ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained by playing fraud. The wife petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint that on the statement of case as made in the plaint itself, the petition appeared to have been presented more than one year after the fraud had been discovered, barring the maintainability of the petition for annulment on account of statutory bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. This application made the non-petitioner husband wiser and he moved the applications seeking amendment of the plaint so as to pray for decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce u/S. 13 of the Act in the alternative.

(3.) Pursuant to the order dated 26-11-1992, the trial Court took up the hearing on the applications filed by both the parties and formed an opinion that the amendment proposed by the husband non-petitioner deserved to be allowed and in view of the amendment having been allowed, the plaint had ceased to be liable to be rejected in spite of the trial Court forming an opinion vide para 13 of its impugned order that the relief of annulment of marriage u/S. 12 of the Act was not available to the husband non-petitioner.