DEEPALI Vs. PANKAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present revision petition the challenge is to the order dated 23-05-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, allowing the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition.

(2.) THE respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. However, during the pendency of the said petition, an application for amendment was made that due to inadvertence and lack of proper legal guidance, the relief of annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the 'Act') on the ground that his consent for marriage was procured by fraud as to the material facts and circumstances concerning the petitioner-wife, was not prayed for. The case of the respondent-husband was that all the facts were disclosed to the Advocate and now he has engaged another Advocate, who advised that he could have sought the relief of annulment of marriage on the plea that his consent was obtained by fraud. It was further pleaded in the application that some other incidents had happened during the stay of the petitioner-wife in the matrimonial house which were the acts of cruelty which he intended to incorporate in the present petition.

(3.) THE application was contested by the petitioner-wife on the ground that in the original petition, the plea that his consent was taken by force or fraud was not pleaded and, therefore, the same was not available to the respondent- husband in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sangita Devi v. Roshan Lal, 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 554. It was also pleaded that the limitation for filing the petition under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that the consent of the respondent-husband was obtained by force or fraud in relation to any material fact or circumstance concerning the petitioner-wife was one year from the date of marriage in view of the law laid down in the case of V. Raja v. Bhuvaneswari, 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 175. It was also claimed that the application was not properly verified. On merits, the stand of the petitioner-wife was that the original petition was filed on the ground of cruelty and now a contrary stand is being taken that it was due to inadvertence that the relief of annulment of marriage under section 12(1)(c) of the Act could not be prayed for on account of lack of proper legal advice. It was further claimed that the husband-respondent was well educated and his father was a reputed Chartered Accountant. The case set up by the petitioner- wife was that the said plea of the respondent-husband was an excuse to amend the main petition.