Civil Revision No. 5404 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5404 of 2009 Date of decision : February 18, 2010 Poonam ....Petitioner versus Kamal Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.6.2009, Annexure P/4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Petitioner Poonam filed divorce petition against her husband Kamal Singh under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). It was, interalia, pleaded in the divorce petition that some occurrence had taken place in June, 2004. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner moved application Annexure P/3 for amendment of the divorce petition to change the date of occurrence from June, 2004 to 28.5.2004. The trial judge dismissed the said amendment application. Thereafter petitioner's counsel made statement on 11.6.2009 in Civil Revision No. 5404 of 2009 -2- the trial court that the divorce petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one on account of aforesaid error in the date of occurrence. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide impugned order dated 11.6.2009, Annexure P/4, dismissed the divorce petition as withdrawn but declined permission to file fresh divorce petition on the same cause of action. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that prayer of the petitioner for dismissing the divorce petition as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one could either be accepted or rejected in toto and could not be split as has been done by the trial court. There is considerable merit in the contention. Petitioner's counsel made a composite request that the divorce petition be dismissed with liberty to file fresh one. However, the trial court accepted the first part of the request and dismissed the divorce petition as withdrawn but rejected the second part of the request and declined liberty to the petitioner to file fresh divorce petition. This could not be done. If the trial court did not find sufficient ground to grant liberty to the petitioner to file fresh divorce petition on the same cause of action then the entire prayer for dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid should have been rejected. The petitioner could not be left high and dry and without remedy. If there was no sufficient ground for permitting the petitioner to withdraw the divorce petition with liberty to file fresh one on same cause of action, then the petitioner had the right to pursue divorce petition which had already been filed if she did not want to withdraw the same un-conditionally. Civil Revision No. 5404 of 2009 -3- In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 11.6.2009, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed with the divorce petition in accordance with law. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 18, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'