sunil
05 February 2019
Sir LCI means??
And i searched it on many websites but showing the same i.e no court and case number mentioned in it.
The whole case is mentioned below
A.K. Shrivastava, J.:� By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant has challenged the validity of the impugned order (AnnexureP-10), dated 15-9-2008 by which the amendment application as well as the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner/defendant have been rejected. 2. An application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent praying therein that the marriage which was solemnized between the parties be declared null and void. According to the application, defendant/petitioner was earlier married to one Ashok Khotani, but, without obtaining any decree of divorce from her earlier husband, the marriage was solemnized between the parties. It has been further pleaded in the application that said Ashok Khotani is still alive. 3. In the written statement it has been specifically pleaded by defendant/petitioner that there is a custom of having divorce in the Sindhi community through Sindhi Panchayat and she was divorced accordingly. A copy of the divorce was given to the plaintiff also by the said Panchayat. Further it has been pleaded by defendant in her written statement that the factum of divorce from her first husband, namely, Ashok Khotani was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, Bhopal, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC has been filed by defendant/petitioner praying therein that the proposed amendment be allowed. This application was opposed by respondent/plaintiff by filing reply. Learned Family Court by the impugned order dismissed the amendment application as well as the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed on behalf of the defendant. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this petition has been filed by defendant. 6. It has been contended by Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the proposed amendment is nothing but explanation and elaboration of the statement made in the written statement and, therefore, since by the proposed amendment nature of the stand of the defendant is not being changed, learned Family Court erred in law in rejecting the application. It has also been put-forth by the learned Counsel that there is specific pleading of the defendant/petitioner in Para 4 of her written statement about the factum of divorce with the earlier husband which is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and this fact has been admitted by him in a letter, and therefore, in order to prove that the letter has been written by plaintiff, examination of handwriting expert is necessary because it has been denied by the plaintiff that the said letter has been written by him. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.C. Sobhani, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued in support of the impugned order and has submitted that since no valid decree of divorce as required under the Act was obtained by the defendant, therefore, proposed amendment cannot be allowed after the evidence of plaintiff is over. It has also been put-forth by learned Counsel that since there was no valid divorce between the defendant and her earlier husband, namely, Ashok Khotani, factum of knowledge of the divorce from her earlier husband through Sindhi Panchayat does not arise and, therefore, rightly the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been rejected. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. 9. On going through Paras 2 and 4 of the written statement it is revealed that certain custom has been pleaded that in Sindhi community there is provision of having divorce being accorded by the Sindhi Panchayat and accordingly defendant divorced her earlier husband Ashok Khotani. This fact has also been pleaded that it was well within the knowledge of plaintiff
