Civil Revision No.4546 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4546 of 2007 Date of decision: May 26, 2008. Varsha Jain ...Petitioner(s) v. Manoj Jain ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 8 Rule 8 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement in a divorce petition, to enable the petitioner to introduce some additional pleas as well as preliminary objections etc., has been declined. The petitioner – wife was married to the respondent on 29.4.1997 and there is one child out of the wedlock who is in custody of the Civil Revision No.4546 of 2007 -: 2 :- petitioner-wife. The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage on the grounds of cruelty etc. The divorce petition was filed in the year 2004, issues were framed on 22.1.2005 and thereafter the respondent-husband led his evidence which appears to have been concluded by him on 5.2.2007. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent-husband took nearly two years to conclude his evidence, the petitioner-wife's evidence, which commenced on 22.2.2007, was ordered to be closed soon thereafter, forcing her to approach this Court by way of Civil Revision No.2680 of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 17.5.2007 thereby granting two more opportunities to enable her to lead the remaining evidence. Meanwhile, the petitioner-wife moved the amendment application to introduce certain new pleas in her written statement, especially to plead that the respondent-husband is guilty of committing bigamy as he has solemnized 'second marriage' with one Shweta Jain, daughter of Kirti Parsad Jain and Smt. Poonam Jain,resident of House No.1960, Block No.2, Shivpuri (Old), Ludhiana where a telephone No.0161-2748338 is also installed. The petitioner further averred that she has also come to know that a female child, baby Deepanshi, has also born out of the respondent's illegal wedlock with Shweta Jain. The petitioner further averred that, “the above said facts were not within the knowledge of the Respondent at the time of filing of the Written Statement and the same are subsequent events, as such the detailed facts could not be mentioned in the written statement. The Respondent now proposes to amend her Written Statement by incorporating the abvoesaid and other related facts and subsequent events in the written statement.” Civil Revision No.4546 of 2007 -: 3 :- The learned Additional District Judge has, however, dismissed the aforesaid application after observing that:- (i) it was the duty of the petitioner to prove as to why she could not plead these facts earlier; (ii) she has already taken a plea that the respondent is living in adultery; (iii) the date of knowledge has not been mentioned nor the date as to when he allegedly married Shweta Jain; (iv) the petitioner has availed six opportunities for evidence earlier but never made a mention of it, and even if “Shweta Jain has travelled in a flight with” the respondent, it does not prove that she has got married to him; (v) there is no documentary proof on the file with regard to the marriage; (vi) Shweta Jain is not party to these proceedings; and (vii) the present case is a history sheet case being pending for the last about 3-1/2 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner-wife has approached this Court. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the application for amendment moved by the petitioner-wife. Least to say, most of the reasons assigned by the learned trial court are totally perverse, being against the settled law. The petitioner-wife is admittedly residing with her parents in the State of Madhya Pradesh whereas the respondent-husband is residing at Faridabad (Haryana). The 2nd marriage, if any, performed by the respondent obviously is a secret arrangement to which the petitioner-wife cannot be expected to have any direct or indirect knowledge. In her amendment application, she has made specific allegations giving full descriptions of the woman to whom the respondent has allegedly got married as well as the child stated to have born out of the said illegal wedlock. She has specifically averred that the second Civil Revision No.4546 of 2007 -: 4 :- marriage by the respondent is a “subsequent event” and it was not in her knowledge previously. Strangely, the learned trial court has dismissed the amendment application on the plea that “no documentary proof” has been placed on record with regard to the marriage. Unless the petitioner-wife is permitted to amend her written statement, how could she lead evidence in support of that plea? It is quite unfortunate that even when the respondent- husband was allowed to consume almost two years to lead his evidence, the learned Additional District Judge did not hesitate in closing the petitioner- wife's evidence within a few months and still has accused her for the delay of about 3-1/2 years in disposal of the petition. The impugned order has, thus, caused complete miscarriage of justice and cannot be allowed to sustain. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this Revision Petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and application for amendment of written statement moved by the petitioner is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- which the respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner before the learned trial court on the next date of hearing. May 26, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge