Anita Dhingra v. Sham Sunder
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CR-2030-2014 (O&M)
Reserved on: 24.03.2023
Date of pronouncement: 28.03.2023 Anita Dhingra
...Petitioner
Versus
Sham Sunder
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN H.S. MADAAN , J.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that in a divorce petition brought by petitioner Sham Sunder against his wife Smt. Anita Dhingra on the grounds of cruelty and desertion which has been pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana during the course of proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the petition so as to incorporate instances of cruelty in the said petition, which according to him could not be included in the petition earlier. The application was resisted by the respondent vehemently. However, vide impugned order dated 07.03.2014, the application was accepted. The reasoning given for allowing the application is contained in para No.4 of the order which for ready reference is being reproduced as
under:- "4.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petition is pending since 15.10.2009 and the instant application has been filed when the case is covered under "Action Plan" and is required to be disposed of in an expeditious manner. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent wife has preferred a revision petition before this Court, notice of which was given to Sham Sunder husband, who has appeared through counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the revision petition. By way of amendment, the petitioner-husband has given the instances of cruelty. He had already taken this ground in the original petition. The result of the amendment is to give details of the instances which according to the petitioner constitute act of cruelty by respondent wife towards the petitioner. The amendment is clarificatory in nature. It does
not result in change of nature and character of the pleadings. Learned trial Court in the impugned order itself has categorically observed that the proposed amendment appears to be necessary for just decision of the case, therefore, the same has been allowed subject to payment of Rs.20.000/- as costs. Keeping in view the fact that the divorce petition is quite old and it has been ordered to be taken up on day to day basis, therefore, the order passed is quite balanced and does not call for any interference.
As far as the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs K.K. Modi & Ors., 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 57 (SC) and B.K. N. Pillai Vs. P. Pillai & Anr. 2000(3) Civil Court Cases, 165 (SC), are concerned, those are not applicable due to different facts and circumstances and the context in which such observations had been made. Therefore, the revision petition is doomed for failure and the same is dismissed accordingly. Resultantly, the interim order passed in the revision petition on 19.03.2014 staying further proceedings before the trial Court comes to an end.