C.R. No.8499 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8499 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 03.01.2011 Mr. Chetan Arora .....Petitioner Versus Sangeeta alias Preeti ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Chetan Arora, who has filed divorce petition against his wife Sangeeta alias Preeti-respondent, has, by way of instant revision petition, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 16.09.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh thereby dismissing petitioner's application Annexure P-1 for amendment of the divorce petition. It is alleged in the amendment application that respondent is leading totally immoral and loose life, but earlier petitioner was not having any proof thereof. However, recently it has come to notice of the petitioner that respondent is having intimacy with one Kailash and has been assuring him that after taking money from the petitioner, the respondent would settle down with Kailash, who is in medical profession. When respondent and her family members learnt that petitioner is going to collect documentary evidence by hiring private detective, respondent lodged complaint to the police on 11.02.2010 by concocting incident dated 05.02.2010 and on its basis, FIR No.46 C.R. No.8499 of 2010 (O & M) -2- has been registered against Kailash under Sections 432, 376 and 506 IPC. The petitioner, therefore, wants to plead that in view of aforesaid conduct of the respondent, it is practically impossible for the parties to live altogether. Aforesaid conduct of respondent has caused mental anguish to the petitioner. The aforesaid amendment application was resisted by the respondent by filing reply Annexure P-2. Averments made in the amendment application were controverted. It was denied that respondent was having any illicit relation with Kailash. It was pleaded that petitioner and Kailash are close to each other and Kailash committed rape on the respondent in connivance and conspiracy with the petitioner and accordingly respondent lodged aforesaid FIR against Kailash. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 has dismissed the amendment application moved by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and aforesaid conduct of the respondent which is sought to be pleaded by amendment would prove the petitioner's plea of cruelty. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. On persistent inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even now the petitioner has no proof regarding immoral and loose life which was allegedly being led by respondent with Kailash except the aforesaid FIR lodged by C.R. No.8499 of 2010 (O & M) -3- respondent against Kailash and report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) presented in the said case, in which Kailash is facing trial under Section 376 IPC and other allied offences. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there is no other proof with the petitioner regarding alleged loose and immoral life which was allegedly being led by the respondent with Kailash. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how the aforesaid FIR and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C presented therein would or could even remotely prove that respondent was leading immoral life with Kailash. On the contrary, respondent has lodged FIR against Kailash regarding rape allegedly committed by Kailash on the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner is not aware as to since when the respondent was leading immoral and loose life with Kailash. The divorce petition was filed in the year 2007 and the amendment application was moved in the year 2010 i.e after three years. Merely because respondent has lodged FIR for offence of rape and other offences against Kailash, it does not give any right to the petitioner to seek proposed amendment because the said FIR does not even remotely depict that the respondent was leading immoral and loose life with Kailash. Rather lodging of the said FIR would negative the said plea sought to be taken by the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that amendment application moved by the petitioner seeking proposed amendment of divorce petition is completely misconceived, frivolous and untenable and the said application has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or C.R. No.8499 of 2010 (O & M) -4- jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 03.01.2011. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE