RAKHI MUKHERJEE Vs. SUBHANKAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the wife/petitioner herein and is directed against the order no.33 dated November 3, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No.2525 of 2006 against the petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Chennai. THEreafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Honble Supreme Court praying, inter alia, for transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of District Judge, Burdwan. That application was allowed resulting in transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan and the suit was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2007. THE suit has now become a regular suit and it has to be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. For that reason, the husband/opposite party herein filed an application for amendment of the plaint giving details of the facts already narrated in the matrimonial proceeding before the Family Court at Chennai. Such detailed facts are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute between the parties pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan. That application for amendment of the plaint was allowed on contest. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the wife.

(3.) THEREFORE, the point that arises for decision is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the husband/opposite party herein has instituted the said suit under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the parties held on March 2, 2005 is null and void owing to the fact that the respondent/petitioner has a spouse. That suit was pending for adjudication before the Family Court at Chennai. Generally, the Family Court deals with such applications in a summary way and the lawyers are not permitted to be engaged in the said matter unless the Court directs otherwise. So, in that case, the detailed facts may not be necessary. Whenever the suit has been transferred from the Family Court at Chennai to the learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan, the matter has become a suit to be conducted by lawyers. The detailed facts are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. The examination-in-chief and the cross-examination may be done in details relating to the allegations raised in the plaint as well as in the written statement. For that reason, detailed facts have been narrated by the proposed amendment. THEREFORE, the proposed amendment is an elaboration of the matter in dispute for proper elucidation.