SAWITA DEVI Vs. PRAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge Srinagar dated 2 -12 -65 whereby he has allowed amendment of plaint as prayed for by the respondent. Moreover, under the provisions of S. 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) he has condoned the delay of a few months from the statutory period of three years as contained in S. 14 (1) of the Act for reasons recorded by him.

(2.) THE facts that have given rise to this appeal are that the respondent filed a petition apparently under S. 13 of the Act on 21 -11 -64 against appellant. The petitioner prayed for a decree of divorce or such other alternative relief as the facts of the case would warrant. The marriage of the parties admittedly has taken place on 11 June 1952 On the date of the presentation of the application two years, five months and ten days had elapsed after the performance of the marriage as held by the learned District Judge. When this petition was presented an objection was taken on 18 -3 -65 by the wife that the application being three years before the solemnization of the marriage and no grounds of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent having been pleaded, the petition could not be entertained and should be dismissed, On this the petitioner again put in an application on 26 -3 -65 stating therein that he would be put to hardship if the application were dismissed and there was only a short time to complete the three years as laid down by law. The matter remained pending. Then by means of an application dated 18th October 1965 the respondent husband put in a detailed amended plaint wherein he made a long list of allegations against the appellant. In paragraph 11 of that amended petition he requested the court for condonation of the period by which his original application for divorce was premature. Objections were filed against this application of the respondent by the wife. These objections are without any date but they seem to have been presented , on 6 -11 -65.

(3.) IT has been pointed out during arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has not specifically refuted the request for condonation of the time as contained in para 11 of the amended petition or the petition seeking amendment. Thereafter the court heard arguments and by its order under appeal it held that as all efforts at a compromise had failed, the court was of the opinion that the petition should not be thrown out and secondly that more than three years had elapsed, when this petition for amendment was presented. If the original petition be ordered to be thrown our, hardly will the ink have dried up on the order sheet when another application will be made". Therefore, exercising his discretion under S. 14 (1) of the Act the trial court condoned the delay and allowed the amendment excepting the allegations mentioned in paras 3 (c), (d) and (f) of the application of 28 -10 -65. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred As the order under appeal is a very substantial one and besides a very important matter in issue between the parties, has been decided by this order we think the appeal is competent under S. 28 of the Act.