Allowed

Ramkisan Manikrao Jadhav v. Sunita Ramkisan Jadhav

Bombay HC15 Feb 2017WP/3311/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash an order rejecting an amendment application in a Hindu Marriage Petition. The court found the impugned order perverse as the amendments were relevant to a compromise agreement on alimony and allowed the amendment to be incorporated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed; the amendment application is allowed; the amendment to be incorporated as para 7-A.

Ramkisan Manikrao Jadhav Vs Sunita Ramkisan Jadhav — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Writ Petition No.3311/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3311 OF 2016

¶5

Ramkisan s/o Manikrao Jadhav Age 33 years, Occu. Labour R/o Ghaigaon, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad

¶6

... PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sunita w/o Ramkisan Jadhav Age 26 years, Occ. Agri. R/o C/o Shivaji Garje, Bhushan Nagar, Kedgaon, Taluka and District Ahmednagar

¶9

... RESPONDENT

¶10

Shri N.D. Sonavane, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J. DATED: 15th February, 2017.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

¶14

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur has rejected the application filed for amendment of pleadings on 6/2/2016. The learned Civil Judge,

¶16

Writ Petition No.3311/2016

¶17

¶18

Senior Division has reasoned that the proposed amendment being already incorporated in the say filed by the petitioner to the application filed by the respondent seeking interim maintenance, there is no need for there being averred again in the main petition.

¶19

On going through the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by this petitioner, it becomes clear that the proposed amendments are not referred to anywhere in it by way of pleadings. It is an admitted fact that these additional pleadings are the result of the subsequent developments. Therefore, the only question would be whether they are relevant or not for the purposes of the main petition. Considering the fact that in the compromise arrived at on 6/11/2015 it was agreed between the petitioner and the respondent that the respondent shall take an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs as permanent alimony after dissolution of the marriage, I do not think that by any stretch of imagination it could be said that the proposed amendment has no relevance with the claim made in the Hindu Marriage Petition. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has completely mixed up these facts. He has, therefore, perversely recorded the finding that the proposed pleadings are available. This is a fit case for making interference.

¶20

The Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The

¶21

¶22

Writ Petition No.3311/2016

¶23

¶24

impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The amendment application vide Exh.17 is allowed. The proposed amendment be incorporated as para 7-A to the main Hindu Marriage Petition within four weeks from the date of this order. Consequential amendments to the written statement to that extent only are permitted. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶25

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

¶26

fmp/wp3311.16

Ramkisan Manikrao Jadhav v. Sunita Ramkisan Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkisan Manikrao Jadhav v. Sunita Ramkisan Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangita Rajkumar Todkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwan Amrutrao Gaikwad Vs Sangram Jalaba Waghmare and Others

Sanjay Bandu Patil Vs Mirza Afzal Baig Mirza Gulab Baig and Ors.

Ankush Shahadeo Yadav Vs the Returning Officer and Others

Rustum Kisanrao Zute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaha Rafiq Aziz Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others