-1- 2025:CGHC:11156 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 103 of 2025 Abhishek Dubey S/o Ashok Kumar Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o C/o Ashok Kumar Dubey, New Rajendra Nagar, Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Ashok Kumar Dubey, R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Shikha Sharma W/o Abhishek Dubey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o C/o Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jain Temple, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate (through VC) with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.03.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the order impugned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, in the interest of justice. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2) Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty on 16.10.2023 before the learned Family Court. He would contend that on 18.10.2023, a police complaint was lodged by the father of petitioner against respondent to the effect that the respondent has obtained the marriage certificate from Municipal Corporation Raipur by submitting a forged affidavit and it was revealed that the earlier marriage of the respondent was dissolved on the ground of cruelty. He would further submit that the petitioner wanted to produce those documents before the learned Family Court along with application for amendment. He would contend that learned Family Court allowed the application for taking document on record, but rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. He would also contend that learned Family Court ought to have allowed the application for amendment particularly when the documents were taken on record. 3) None for the respondent in two rounds though represented. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the suit pending before the learned Family Court, is at its initial stage and evidence has not yet commenced. Application for taking document on record along with application under Order 6 -3- Rule 17 of the CPC were moved by the petitioner prior to examination of witnesses and vide order dated 06.01.2025, the application for taking document on record has been allowed, but the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was moved to bring certain facts with regard to the dissolution of earlier marriage of respondent has been rejected, on the ground that the amendment sought for is not relevant. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that learned Family Court allowed the application for taking document on record and rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC; the order passed by the learned Family Court whereby application moved by the petitioner for amendment was rejected, is hereby set-aside. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is hereby allowed. 7) The learned Family Court shall permit the petitioner to carry out necessary amendment within 15 days from today. 8) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM