Priyanka Singh vs District Judge, Jaunpur and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—This is yet another unfortunate case in a criminal dispute between a newly married couple. The petitioner before the Court is the wife who has come up questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the court below refusing to allow the amendment in the written statement in a suit filed by the opposite party u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties took place sometime in the year 2006. The dispute appears to have arisen shortly thereafter and the present proceedings appear to have been initiated with the filing of an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the opposite party husband in the year 2008. A written statement was filed by the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure-2 and paragraph 20 of the said written statement which is the bone of contention between the parties in the present proceeding is as follows:

It appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that she was living an unchaste life and had illicit relationship with one Manish Singh.

Later on it appears that the husband further alleged that she has been remarried to one Tej Bahadur Singh and accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party implicating the petitioner and Tej Bahadur Singh in a criminal case which is still pending consideration before the competent court.

In between a compromise is alleged to have been filed on 1st August, 2009. The said compromise is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The explanation given by the petitioner is that a compromise was written and was filed with the signature of the petitioner but on account of differences having arisen later on neither the compromise was verified nor did the trial court pass any orders thereon and the same is pending on record.

The petitioner thereafter appears to have moved an application for amendment in the written statement filed by her for amending the word to be read as in paragraph 20 of the written statement, and the words be also added after the word in the said paragraph quoted hereinabove. The proposed amendment was objected to by the opposite party and the trial court vide order dated 19th July, 2011 rejected the amendment application on the ground that the petitioner herself had admitted the earlier compromise having been filed, and as a matter of fact the aforesaid admission on the part of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be resiled back as it could change the entire nature of the case. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the said application against which a revision was preferred by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed on 11.11.2011. Hence, this petition.

The petitioner had also earlier sought an amendment about which an order came to be passed on 16.5.2009. While passing the said order on the amendment application earlier filed by the petitioner the fact of this admission has been noticed therein as contained in paragraph 20 of the written statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this error having been located the application for amendment giving rise to the present controversy was moved, and the same ought to have been accepted, hence the courts below have committed an error by rejecting the second amendment application.

Learned counsel for the opposite party Sri S.K. Mishra submits that the said mistake was not an error, and the petitioner had full knowledge of the said admission made in paragraph 20 and which also finds recorded in the order dated 16.5.2009. The petitioner did not make any attempt to get the amendment made even at the earlier stage, and it is only after the criminal prosecution launched by the answering respondent where the petitioner and Tej Bahadur Singh have been summoned, that the present amendment application was moved. He contends that this was a clear case of afterthought with a view to change the entire nature of the pleadings so as to resile back from the admission as contained in paragraph 20 of the written statement. He, therefore, submits that the courts below have rightly rejected the application for amendment moved by the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties from the order-sheet and the orders on record there does not appear to be any order passed on the compromise application that was filed by the parties about which a description has been narrated hereinabove. The trial court ought to have proceeded to dispose of the said application in view of the provisions of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not the case of the parties that such an application had not been filed. In this view of the matter the trial court was under a legal obligation to have disposed of the compromise application first before proceeding with the matter any further.

The aforesaid course was to be necessarily adopted in order to find out a resolution to the said dispute as the parties have already indulged in civil and criminal prosecution against each other which in no way would accrue any benefit to either of the parties or their marital life. The continuous and persistent litigation would admittedly ruin the life of both the parties and in this background the trial court should have first adverted to the application for compromise which had been filed and which according to the petitioner herself is still pending consideration till date.

In the circumstances aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to first make an attempt to decide the said application before proceeding to finally dispose of the matter;

So far as the issue of amendment is concerned, in my opinion, an admission made on oath can be explained by a party but such an admission cannot be allowed to be completely resiled from under the garb of any explanation. Para 20 of the written statement is categorical in accepting the relief of divorce and denial of the rest of the reliefs. However without commenting upon the nature of the admission, since the matter is yet to be disposed of finally, it is observed that the trial court shall take into consideration the aforesaid nature of the admission as alleged by the respondent and independently render its opinion after taking into account the composite impact of the entire written statement as well as the statement of the petitioner filed in the said suit without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

The petition is therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid directions.