CR No.6483 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6483 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Shekhar Wadhwa ......Petitioner Versus Sonia ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondent * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The husband-petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the trial Court whereby his application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte and vide judgment and decree dated 6.4.2007, the marriage between the parties was dissolved. After the dissolution of his marriage, the petitioner performed second marriage on 20.9.2007 with one Asha daughter of Sh. Hans Raj, r/o Karnal, who was now pregnant with petitioner's child. On an application filed by the respondent, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 6.4.2007 was set aside vide order dated 25.3.2008. The petitioner moved an application seeking permission to bring on record the facts regarding the changed circumstances with regard to his second marriage and the pregnancy of his second wife by way of amendment of plaint. However, the trial Court had vide impugned order CR No.6483 of 2008 2 illegally dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the proposed amendment was necessary and the petitioner was entitled to bring on record the subsequent facts which were not in existence at the time of filing of the original petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to add the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage of the parties which is not provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, the amendment sought by the petitioner was not necessary at all. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner has contracted second marriage. It is not in dispute that the facts which are sought to be incorporated by way of amendment have come into existence after the passing of the ex parte decree dated 6.4.2007 which could not have been pleaded in the original plaint. It is also not in dispute that the petition is at the stage of petitioner's evidence. It is well settled that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice and they are to be construed liberally. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to plead the facts as sought to be incorporated by him by the proposed amendment. Thus, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and amendment application filed by the petitioner is allowed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 27.4.2009. April 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE