IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4713 of 2010 Between: Ruvva Srinu ... PETITIONER a n d Ruvva Sandhya … RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27-07-2010 passed in I.A.No.542 of 2010 in O.P.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 20-05-2004. A female child was born to them out of the wedlock on 25-01-2007. The petitioner – husband filed O.P. under Section 13 (1) (i) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent- wife entered appearance and resisted the relief sought for by the petitioner – husband. Thereafter the petitioner – husband filed I.A.No.542 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the relief. By way of amendment, the petitioner advanced the plea that he is not biological father of Anjani and that the respondent is suffering from HIV Positive. 3. The respondent – wife filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the amendment sought for cannot be permitted in view of the specific averment in O.P.No.879 of 2009 admitting the paternity of the child. With the said observation, the learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the application. For better understanding, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge which reads as hereunder: “As per the averments of the petition the respondent had left his company on 13-09-2009 and the present petition is filed within one month. Therefore, when the respondent is said to have been suffering from HIV Positive the same could not be ruled out with the case of the petitioner since admittedly they lived together up to 13-09-2009 just a month before filing of the main O.P. for divorce. Further as per the contention of the respondent in counter, the petitioner herein filed Guardian O.P.No.879/2009 and he contended that he is the father of a boy and daughter viz., Anjani. Therefore, he is turning around of his own contention in the Guardian O.P.No.879/2009 and declining the paternity of the daughter. Therefore, his contention in the present petition is not in consonance with his own contention raised in the Guardian O.P. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is suffering from HIV Positive is concerned, he did not disclose as to how he came to know the same. Similarly, he did not place any material before the court to prove that the respondent is suffering from HIV Positive. In the absence of any material before the court the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is suffering with HIV Positive, which is being felt in the society as a stigma not only on the person but also against the entire family and further in spite of great awareness created by the Government with regard to the HIV Positive still there is apprehension of discrimination in the society and in such a case the respondent would be put to not only great hardship but also social discrimination. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any material evidence with regard to the allegation amounts to subjecting the respondent further. The allegations of such nature are not tenable.” 4. Assailing the order, the husband has filed this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent is suffering from HIV Positive and necessary pleading is required to be taken by the petitioner – husband in the O.P. so as to enable him to substantiate the said pleading by adducing evidence. A further submission has made that the petitioner-husband is not the biological father of the female child and that fact he came to know of it only after filing the O.P. and therefore, the amendment sought for deserves to be allowed. 7. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. Indisputably, the petitioner filed O.P.No.879 of 2009 seeking appointment of him as a Guardian for the child. Having sought for custody of the child, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that he is not the biological father of the child. The petitioner filed O.P.No.69 of 2009 on 13-10-2009 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent – wife is leading adulterous life. He did not whisper of the respondent – wife is suffering from HIV Positives. Even in the O.P.No.69 of 2009, the petitioner pleaded that the respondent – wife left his company on 13-09-2009. He filed the O.P. for dissolution of marriage on 13-10-2009. Had the respondent – wife has been suffering from HIV Positive, he should have mentioned the same in the original petition. The learned Senior Civil Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the petition. I do not see any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this 2Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the order impugned in the revision. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J October 22, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4713 of 2010 October 22, 2010