ANITA CHANDEL Vs. MANEET KHANEL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, filed on 10.06.2016, a petition before the learned District Judge, concerned, petition whereof is cast under the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the petition, the petitioner prays, for, dissolution of marital ties, with, her legally wedded husband AND also claims compensation, of, Rs. 50lacs, from the respondents. However, Court fees ad-valorem vis-a-vis relief of compensation, was not appended with the Hindu Marriage Petition. Also apparently, despite, opportunity(s) being granted to the petitioner herein, to make good deficiency(s) in the ad-valorem Court fees, to be affixed vis-a-vis her claim for compensation(s), she yet omitted to do so. However, it is apparent, on, reading(s), of, a recorded statement made by the petitioner on 18.4.2017, statement whereof exists on the paper book, of, its disclosing of hers' communicating therein, of, hers not pressing for relief(s) of compensation, against, the respondent and his parents. However, subsequent thereto, the petitioner also instituted an application, cast under the provision of Order 6 Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for begetting appropriate amendments in consonance therewith. The respondents herein also instituted an application, under, Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking therein, relief, of rejection of the Hindu Marriage Petition. Under the impugned order, the learned District Judge concerned, accepted, the prayer made by the respondents in their application borne hence under the provision(s) of under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereas, he proceeded to obviously also decline relief, to, the petitioner herein, upon, her application preferred before him, for begetting amendment(s) in the Hindu Marriage Petition.

(2.) Be that as it may, the petitioner could not be compelled, as untenably done, by the learned District Judge concerned, to retain all cause(s) of action, especially, those initially borne in the Hindu Marriage Petition, importantly, the one appertaining vis.a.vis relief of compensation. The learned District Judge concerned was also hence enjoined, to, mete reverence, to the statement recorded by the petitioner, whereby, she abandoned her claim vis-a-vis relief of compensation. The petitioner had also subsequent thereto, moved, an application for begetting amendments in consonance therewith, in the Hindu Marriage petition. Consequence, thereof being, of, the learned District Judge concerned, being barred from insisting upon the petitioner, to, affix upon the apposite petition, Court fees ad-volerem vis.a.vis her initially incorporated therein relief of compensation, plea whereof rather was explicitly abandoned, also he was enjoined to, mete relief vis-a-vis the, petitioner, upon her application cast under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. Corollary thereof(s), is, of the learned District Judge, rather attracting, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vis-a-vis the Hindu Marriage Petition, has hence committed an illegality. In aftermath, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla on 12th January, 2018. No costs.