IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH …… Civil Revision No. 7448 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Sheetal Bhushan ..... Petitioner Versus Amitabh Bhushan ..... Respondent …… CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** RITU BAHRI, J This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2011 (An- nexure P-3) passed by Family Court, Gurgaon, vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of pe- tition has been allowed. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Thereafter, an FIR No. 162 dated 11.11.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered against the respondent-husband. The present petitioner has moved a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C on 08.10.2009 and has also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protec- Civil Revision No. 7448 of 2011 -2- tion of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005, alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband. In the application for amendment the respondent-husband had sought permission to amend the plaint by adding paragraph No. 29-A, 29-B, 29-C and 29-D. The FIR registered under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC was enquired into by the police and the allegations lev- eled by the petitioner-wife were found false. In the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, she alleged that she has levelled allegations that she had received physical beating and mental harassment from her husband. She should be awarded maintenance at the rate of `8,000/- per month. In order to harass and humiliate the prestige of the hus- band, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 06.01.2011 in which allegations against the parents of the respondent-husband have been levelled. The appli- cation was allowed vide order dated 12.11.2011. No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order, as concededly these issues have come up after the filing of divorce pe- tition in May 2009. While allowing the proposed amendment the pres- ent petitioner-wife will be at liberty to lead her evidence in defence. Civil Revision is dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2011 sham