RAJINDER SINGH JAMWAL Vs. KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through the medium of instant petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside order dated 20.01.2014 in case titled as Rajinder Singh Jamwal v. Smt. Kiran (hereinafter for short as 'impugned order') by virtue of which learned trial Court has directed filing of objections to the amended petition on the grounds taken in the memo of petition. As per the averments made in the petition, it appears that petitioner has filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu. Thereafter he filed application for amendment of the divorce petition, which came to be allowed vide order dated 14.08.2012 permitting the petitioner to file amended petition. It is also contended that petitioner appeared before the trial Court for his cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent, but instead of proceeding further with the cross-examination, trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2014 has fixed the case for filing of objections to the amended petition causing serious injustice and prejudice to the petitioner thereby making all the proceedings conducted by the Court an exercise in futility. It is contended that the issues were framed on 06.02.2013 and till passing of impugned order dated 20.01.2014, respondent has not shown any willingness to file objections to the amended petition. It is this order which is called-in-question in the present petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) It is not in dispute that petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending consideration before the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu. It is contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate that respondent appeared before it on 06.02.2013 and assisted in framing the issues, meaning thereby she has waived her right to file objections to the amended petition. Order impugned, in fact, set at naught all the proceedings conducted by the trial Court. At the stage of leading evidence, the court below had not shown any reasons to permit the respondent to file objections to the amended petition. It is contended that order impugned operates harshly against him. Respondent has refuted all the allegations levelled against her by filing objections to the divorce petition, but in the instant case, she has not filed objections despite considerable long time.