IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3570 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Sukhgeet Kaur ....Petitioner. Versus Rupinder Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-wife who is respondent in the divorce proceedings initiated by her husband, has sought the setting aside of the order dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by the respondent-husband under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the replication was allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent states that now the marriage between the parties has been dissolved as a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed in favour of the parties. He further states that in view thereof, the present petition which is an outcome of the earlier petition for divorce filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty has been C.R. No. 3570 of 2008 -2- rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she has no instructions with regard to the aforesaid facts. She, however, states that the present petition may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous but liberty may be granted to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the petition in case the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the petition in case the statement made by the counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect. July 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE