VISHAL VASHISHT Vs. NITASHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 28/7/2022 (Annexure P-8) vide which the Ld. Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Jalandhar dismissed the application of the petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner for getting the expert opinion with respect to the disease, i.e., Rheumatoid Arthritis of the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing arguments on the question of maintainability of the instant petition, submits that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the instant petition would be maintainable. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "K.P. Natarajan and others vs. Muthalammal and others", SLP (C) 2492 of 2021 and "Radhey Shyam and others vs. Chhabi Nath and others", Civil Appeal No.2548 of 2009.

(3.) On merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and thus, deserves to be set aside. He submits that the petitioner in his petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has categorically pleaded that the respondent was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis even prior to their marriage. Hence, the non-disclosure and concealment of her state of health and illness amounted to cruelty. He still further submits that in order to prove the fact that the respondent had been suffering from the said disease, even prior to the solemnization of their marriage, the appointment of the Local Commissioner for giving expert opinion regarding the origin/history of the disease would be necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.