1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1593 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1593 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Gandhi for Petitioner/ wife. Respondent/ husband in 2007 initiated proceeding under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In 2010 he moved application for amendment therein to add a prayer in the alternate. By alternate prayer he sought decree for dissolution of marriage. 2. By placing reliance upon judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Vidyabai and others V/s Padmalatha and another" reported in 2009 (2) S.C.C. 409 Shri Gandhi contends that after three years and that too after commencing of evidence such application could not have been allowed. Facts were very well within the knowledge of petitioner. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the matter was sent to mediation and after failure therein the proposed 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1593 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. amendment has been sought. Trial Court has looked into it and found that such amendment is in the alternate. 3. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties as trial Court has considered all relevant aspects, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. No case is made out warranting interference. Petition is rejected. 4. It is not necessary to consider prayer to decide Exhibit-30 expeditiously, in this petition. The Petitioner is free to take appropriate steps in this respect before the trial Court. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/03/2011. ans/1593