IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.155 of 2008 Ganesh Kumar Mahto son of Jagdish Mahto resident of village Dhobgama P.S. Pusa Dist. Samastipur ----Applicant-Petitioner Versus 1. Chandrakala Devi D/o Baleshwar Mahto 2. Baleshwar Mahto son of Late Bhudhan Mahto 3. Sumitra Devi wife of Baleshwar Mahto All resident of village and post Kalyanpur Gunj P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur 4. Manoj Kumar Son of Bhagya Narayan Mahto resident of village Dhobgama P.S. Pusa Dist. Samastipur ---- Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. parties: Mr Hemendra Pd. Singh, Advocate ------------- 06 02.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant-petitioner challenging order dated 13.11.2007 by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur rejected his prayer for amendment of his application bearing Matrimonial Case no. 3 of 2005. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was married to opposite party no.1 according to Hindu rites on 13.05.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 16.05.2005 opposite party no.1 returned to her Maika whereafter on 17.05.2005 the petitioner went there and when he woke up on the next morning, he found that his wife, namely, opposite party no.1 had fled away. Hence he filed aforesaid matrimonial case on 22.07.2005 under the provision of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that - 2 - subsequently he learnt that his wife namely, opposite party no.1 was living with another person namely, Manoj Kumar (opposite party no.4) and has also given birth to a child from him on 13.08.2006 and hence he filed two applications dated 03.08.2006 (Annexure 6) and 02.11.2006 (Annexure 7)for amendment of his matrimonial application for adding said Manoj Kumar as opposite party no.4 and also for deleting Section 9 of the Act and in its place adding the aforesaid facts and Section 13 of the Act. Both the said applications have been rejected by the learned court below by is order dated 13.11.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid amendment sought as well as from the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wants to convert the matrimonial case from one for restitution of conjugal rights to a case for dissolution of marriage. It is quite apparent that the relief in both the matters would be different as would be the cause of action. Furthermore, the facts required for the relief for restitution of conjugal rights would be completely different, rather contrary to the facts required for the relief for dissolution of marriage. In the said circumstance, there was no question of any amendment in the matrimonial petition and the only course open to the applicant-petitioner was to withdraw the matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights obtaining liberty for filing a fresh matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage. Apart from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite - 3 - apparent from perusal of the impugned order that the learned court below after considering every relevant aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the interlocutory petition filed by the applicant-petitioner. Furthermore this Court neither finds any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)