Krishnendu Roy vs Pritisha Bhowmik

The defendant-husband in a suit for annulment of marriage has preferred the instant revisional application. The opposite party-wife initially filed the

suit under Section 25 (i) and (ii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Upon the petitioner filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, an application for amendment was filed by the opposite party-wife, inter alia to convert the suit to one under

Section 25(i) and (iii) of the said Act of 1954. The prayer for amendment of the plaint was allowed vide Order No. 13 dated December 12, 2017.

Subsequently, the petitioner-husband took out another application under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code, alleging that the wife had not filed amended

plaint within the statutory time limit.

By virtue of the impugned order dated February 3, 2018, both the applications, for rejection of plaint and under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code, were

dismissed, granting time to the opposite party-wife to file additional written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no ingredients of

either Section 25(i) or Section 25(iii) of the said Act of 1954 were revealed from a plain reading of the plaint. Moreover, learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint to entitle the plaintiff-wife to have a decree of annulment of marriage.

A perusal of the order dated December 12, 2017, shows that, by virtue of the said order, the amendment sought by the opposite party-wife, was

allowed and it was observed; “let necessary note be made in the application in terms of the application allowed this day'. Such observation

necessarily shows that the direction was upon the concerned section of the Court below to carry out the ancillary clerical work of amending the

divorce petition and it was not upon the opposite party-wife to file an amended plaint. The language of Order VI Rules 17 and 18 of the Code admits

of both options and as such, it would be a valid conclusion that the wife was not at fault for non-compliance of Rule 18 Order VI of the Code for not

filing any amended plaint. It was incumbent on the concerned section of the court below to carry out such amendment, for which the opposite party-

wife could not be faulted at all.

As such, the portion of the impugned order, whereby the prayer under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code was refused, has to stand. As to rejection of the

plaint, a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, on the face of it, reveals that sufficient cause of action was disclosed by the opposite party-wife.

The chronology of events, as set out in the plaint, shows that, as per the plaint allegation, the marriage between the parties was registered under the

Special Marriage Act on March 12, 2015 and thereafter, apparently the parties lived separately on condition that after social ceremony the opposite

party-wife would go to the house of the petitioner-husband for leading conjugal life.

It was stated thereafter in the plaint that subsequently after registration of marriage the opposite party had been residing at her parental house

separately from the husband and that the marriage between the parties was not consummated due to willful refusal on the part of the husband. It was

also stated in the plaint that only in the month of May, 2015, the wife and her parents came to know of alleged suppression and misrepresentation by

the husband, as to his educational qualification. There are several subsequent allegations in the following paragraphs of the plaint as to the nature of

fraud allegedly perpetuated by the husband.

As such, the arguments advanced by the petitioner to the effect that the wife’s allegations in the plaint were mutually exclusive and did not

disclose any cause of action, cannot stand a moments scrutiny. On a plain and complete reading of the plaint, it has to be concluded that the same

reveals sufficient cause of action and is not barred by any law. As such, the trial Judge was justified in refusing both the prayers of the petitioner-

husband for rejection of plaint and for non-acceptance of the amended plaint and the impugned order cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, C. O. No. 842 of 2018 is dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for,

be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.