RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. KULWINDER RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order dated 22nd November, 2012 by which an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the petition has been declined. In brief, the petitioner has filled a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) alleging that the marriage between the parties has been solemnized on 05.02.1998 and were blessed with a son namely Dikshant on 23rd September, 2002. The parties are living separately since the year 2004. Already there are two cases pending against the petitioner, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and the other under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act The divorce petition has been filed basically on the ground of cruelty meted out by the wife to the husband, white the evidence of the respondent-wife was going on, she insulted the petitioner and slapped him in the open Court in full public view in the presence of lawyers & litigants besides the Court staff. The petitioner alleged to have suffered extreme humiliation but he did not react or retaliate at that time. The petitioner has also alleged that in his cross-examination, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner is involved with a girl known as Jasbir Kaur @ Jassi, who was his tenant with whom he had developed illicit relations in his house at Garhshanker. These are the new facts indicating the extent of cruelty by the respondent which was sought to be brought in the petition for divorce by way of amendment but the application has been declined by the teamed Trial Court on the ground that if such statement has been made by the respondent in the pending case, the Court file would be summoned and all the certified copies will be put to the respondent for which the amendment is not required. It is also observed that the amendment has been made after 5 months from the alleged statement, therefore, it is highly belated. On 25.10.2013 while dismissal of the transfer petition by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, he also recorded regarding the conduct of the respondent-wife as follows:-

(2.) Counsel for the respondent however has submitted that the amendment at this stage cannot be allowed because the trial has already begun and if any such incident, as alleged by the petitioner has happened, it can be put to the respondent during her cross-examination which is still not completed.

(3.) Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is not disputed that both the parties are at loggerheads, as respondent is living separately from the past 10 years as according to her she is living separately since 2004. It is also not disputed that there are already 2 cases pending against the petitioner filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and for taking action under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act besides a criminal case which according to counsel for the petitioner has already been dismissed. Once the divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground of cruelty, subsequent events was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, could always be pleaded by him which shows further extent of cruelty committed by the respondent because as in the present case the respondent has not only made all types of insinuation and aspersions on the character of the petitioner and his sister but also allegedly slapped him in the open Court in the full public view in front of Lawyers, staff member and litigants etc. She has also in her cross-examination, made statement, which may be false or not that he is involved with a girl namely Jasbir Kaur @ Jassi and with whom he has illicit relation, developed when she was living as a tenant in his house at the Garhshanker. So far as the allegation of the petitioner that he has been slapped by the respondent in the open Court in full public view is concerned, it is also a question of fact and that he is in illicit relation with a lady, cannot be decided until these are taken in the pleadings and are proved by the petitioner by way of evidence. If it is not prayed by the respondent that he was having illicit relation with a girl namely Jasbir Kaur @ Jassi, then of-course it would be treated to be an allegation which tantamount to the cruelty to the husband but before it would be decided, the petitioner has to be granted permission to take the plea in the petition, which could always be responded or explained in her written statement. In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstance and the fact that the amendment sought by the petitioner is of a subsequent event and it would determine the real question in controversy between the parties, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2012 is set aside.