MANJU Vs. DHARAMPAL KHINCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 26.7.2011 passed upon application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., whereby, the application filed by the petitioner wife is rejected.

(2.) AS per facts of the case, the respondent-husband filed divorce petition against the petitioner, in which, a written-statement was filed by the petitioner-wife in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu). After filing the written statement, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner to incorporate following para in the written statement which reads as under : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image1.jpg</IMG> That now the parties have arrived at a settlement in relation to all the issues between them and the applicant does not wish the prosecution of appellant-Mukesh in the matter and has compromised all her disputes with the appellant Mukesh as well as her in-laws' <IMG>JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image2.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_1867_RAJLW2_2012Image3.jpg</IMG>

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues that the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement is totally illegal and perverse because, on the one hand, assurance was given to the petitioner that she may compromise the criminal matter against brother-in-law Mukesh Kumar and, thereafter, the divorce petition will be withdrawn by the respondent husband. But, when the divorce petition filed by the respondent husband was not withdrawn, then, the only course was left with the petitioner to seek amendment in the written statement for apprising the court with the subsequent events which is necessary for adjudication of the controversy.