1 wp6895-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6895 OF 2010 Savita Sudhir Gaikwad ..Petitioner Vs Sudhir Kevalram Gaikwad ..Respondent -- Mr.Girish Agarwal, for petitioner. Mr.Girish Godbole with Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar, for respondent. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 28 th JANUARY, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr.Girish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Girish Godbole, learned counsel for the respondent. 2] Rule. Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 3] The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12 th July, 2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik below exhibit 13 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.185 of 2003. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. 2 wp6895-10.sxw 4] The respondent husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.185 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In paragraph no.1 of the petition, it was asserted that the marriage between the parties was solemanised as per the Hindu religious rites. The petitioner wife filed the written statement on 6 th April, 2004 opposing the said petition. In paragraph no.6 of the written statement, she admitted the correctness of the contents of paragraph no.1 of the petition. 5] While the respondent husband was under cross-examination, the Advocate for petitioner (wife) wanted to ask the husband about the details and the procedure of the marriage. It appears that the petitioner wife was not permitted to cross-examine the respondent husband on the ground that there was no pleading in the written statement to that effect. Pursuant to that, the petitioner wife filed application exhibit 13 on 22 nd March, 2010 praying for amendment in the written statement to the effect that the marriage between the parties took place under the Special Marriage Act by giving 30 days notice in the Office of the Marriage Registrar, Nashik. The said application was opposed by the respondent husband and upon hearing both the sides, the leaned trial Judge rejected the application. It is against this order, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner wife. 6] As noted earlier, in paragraph no.1 of the petition filed before the trial Court, the respondent husband has asserted that the marriage was 3 wp6895-10.sxw solemanised between the parties as per the Hindu rites. In the written statement filed in 2004, the petitioner wife admitted the correctness of the said assertion. While the husband was under cross-examination in 2010, the petitioner wife intended to put questions about the details and procedure of the marriage. The said question was dis-allowed and, consequently, the application for amendment was made by the petitioner wife. 7] Learned trial Judge rejected the application having regard to the pleadings of the parties. Even at the time of hearing of the present petition, I called upon Mr.Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate that the marriage between the parties was performed under the Special Marriage Act and to produce the certificate to that effect. However, Mr.Agarwal was not in a position to produce the said certificate. Even otherwise, considering the case made out by the petitioner wife, it cannot be said that learned trial Judge committed any error in rejecting the application. No case for interference is made out. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to the costs. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]