IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 665 of 2009 Smt. Ruchika W/o Shri Vikal Kulshrestha, D/o Shri J.C. Dawar, presently residing at 2/15, Ashirwad Enclave, Ballupur, P.S. Vasant Vihar, Dehradun. ……… Petitioner Versus Vikal Kulshrestha S/o Shri Krishanmohan Kulshrestha, R/o KH-168 Kavinagar, Ghaziabad, 2nd Address D-56 Kaushambi behind P.N.B. Ghaziabad (U.P.) ……… Respondent …………………. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Rab, learned counsel for the respondent. Date: May 07, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted permission to file supplementary affidavit before the Court. 2. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking certiorari quashing the order dated 22.04.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.393 of 2007, Vikal Kulshrestha versus Smt.Ruchika Kulshrestha, by which the amendment application filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) has been rejected. 4. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a petition under Sec. 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. Earlier a dispute was going on between the parties which was disposed of by this Court accepting the compromise filed by the parties. The respondent (husband) filed a petition seeking decree of divorce, although 2 according to the terms of the compromise, the parties were to file petition under Sec.13 B of Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent. After notice to the defendant/petitioner, she filed her written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised to file amendment application seeking necessary amendments in the written statement. The plaintiff/respondent filed his objection on the said amendment application. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the amendment application of the petitioner/defendant by the impugned order dated 20.04.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of argument, Sri A. Rab, learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to it that the amendment application of the petitioner may be allowed but the learned Judge, Family Court may be directed to decide the suit within a stipulated time. 6. In view of above consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the amendment application moved by the petitioner in Suit No.393/2007 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is allowed. The petitioner may carry necessary amendment in the written statement within two weeks from today by producing certified copy of this order. Thereafter the respondent/plaintiff may file replication to the amendments within next two weeks. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is further directed to decide the aforesaid suit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. (B.S.Verma,J.) 07.05.2009 P.Singh