Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16224 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1405 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Anuradha Singh Respondent :- Anil Kumar Singh And 2 Others. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaustubh Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 as well as the order dated 29.11.2024. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner being married to respondent No.1, filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce. In the said petition, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were also impleaded, being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner. However, as no relief was claimed against them, an order came to be passed on 29.11.2024 in the purported exercise of powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, whereby the petitioner was directed to delete the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an amendment application seeking amendment in the prayer clause on the ground that in addition to the decree of divorce, the petitioner was also entitled to return of the Stridhan as claimed by her, which were lying with defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said application was rejected on the ground that an order dated 29.11.2024 has already been passed. 4. Considering the mandatory provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Family Courts Act, the intent is that all the litigation in between the spouses should be settled in one court that being the Family Court. 5. At the stage of filing of the case, the court took a very narrow view while passing the order dated 29.11.2024, directing the petitioner to delete the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perhaps on account of ignorance and lack of legal knowledge, the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner at the first instance were not made, which was subsequently prayed by filing an amendment application, which too has been rejected. It is also evident that both the orders were passed even before issuing notices to the respondents, as such, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents at this stage. 6. Considering the fact that the intent and purpose of the Family Courts Act is to ensure speedy disposal of the matrimonial cases and generally, the litigants are not educated, the Family Court was wholly unjustified in taking a narrow view in passing the said two orders. 7. Both the orders are quashed. The amendment application shall be heard afresh. The order dated 29.11.2024 shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the amendment application by the Family Court. After passing orders on the amendment application, the matter shall proceed afresh in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench