The High Court modified an order allowing partial amendment of a divorce petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, permitting para 5(b) but deeming para 5(c) repetitive. The petition was effectively allowed in modified form.
Amendment of petition to include para 5(b) allowed; para 5(c) deemed unnecessary and not allowed; impugned order modified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT::
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1150 OF 2011
Between:
B.Rajashekhar Reddy
…Petitioner
A n d
Smt.Ashwini
..Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1150 OF 2011
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2011 in I.A.No.102 of 2010 in O.P.No.28 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition, was allowed-in-part.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.28 of 2009 against the respondent seeking divorce. The respondent herein filed a counter opposing the application. The matter is pending enquiry. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.102 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the petition by incorporating paras 5(a),
5 (b) and 5(c) as set out in the petition. The respondent herein
filed counter opposing the proposed amendments. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application in part, permitting amendment of the petition in respect of para 5(a) only and refusing permission regarding paras 5(b) and 5(c).
4. The petitioner sought amendment of the petition by incorporating 5(b) and 5(c) so as to bring on record the factum of filing of DVC by the wife.
5. It is not disputed that subsequent to filing of O.P.No.28 of 2009, the respondent filed DVC.No.3 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manthani under Sections 17 to 23 of
the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Filing of the said DVC is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner/husband merely seeks to bring the said subsequent event of filing of DVC by the wife for which there cannot be any tenable objection, as the wife herself filed the said DVC against the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the averments in para 5, proposed 5(c) is only repetition of the plea raised in para 5(b). It is open to the petitioner to file the necessary documents regarding the filing of DVC.No.3 of 2009 by the wife during the course of enquiry in the O.P.
6. In the circumstances, while permitting the petitioner to amend the petition as proposed in para 5(b), it is considered that the proposed para 5(c) is unnecessary being repetitive in nature. The impugned order is modified
accordingly. It is needless to state that the respondent is at liberty to file additional counter meeting the additional pleas raised in para 5(b) of the petition.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th July, 2011 Lrkm.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the partial allowance of amendment and refusal regarding repetitive averments should be allowed.
Whether the proposed para 5(c) in the petition is unnecessary as it is a repetition of para 5(b).
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Rajashekhar Reddy
Smt.Ashwini
G.V.SEETHAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
