Civil Revision No. 1760 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1760 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Kiran Sharma ....Petitioner Versus O.P.Sharma ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-husband filed a divorce plea against the petitioner-wife for dissolution of marriage on an averment of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner-wife filed a counter claim therein which was responded by respondent-husband by filing pleadings at the trial. In the course of the trial, the respondent-husband filed a plea to amend the petition to allege that the petitioner-wife is suffering from mental disorder. The plea was contested by the petitioner-wife. However, the learned Trial Court granted it. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the allowance of the amendment plea would force almost a re-trial of the controversy. Even otherwise, the argument Civil Revision No. 1760 of 2010 -2- **** proceeded, the respondent-husband ought not to have been allowed to raise that plea which was to his notice from the very beginning and which (plea) could not be termed to be based upon a subsequent event. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is oblivious of the fact that the averment with regard to petitioner-wife suffering from mental disorder had been taken up in the reply to the counter claim. It is in the course of the preliminary objection no.4 thereof that the respondent-husband made an averment to the effect that the petitioner-wife is suffering from mental disorder. (“Moreover as per subsequently knowledge gained by the petitioner the respondent is suffering from mental disorder”.) In that view of things, it is obvious that the plea for amendment was not based on any fact which may have come to the notice of the respondent-husband at a point of time subsequent to the filing of the pleadings at the trial. The petitioner cannot wish away the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K.Modi 2006 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 577 to the effect that it is mandatory on court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. We cannot, while in the process of the adjudicatory exercise, be unmindful of the fact that the controversy is about the creases in the matrimonial relationship of the parties. In cases Civil Revision No. 1760 of 2010 -3- **** involving a delicate relationship of indicated category, it should be the endeavour of the Courts to allow the parties to raise whatever issues they desire inasmuch as that only would enable the Courts to adjudicate upon the controversy effectually and completely. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 1760 of 2010 -4- ****