[2026:JHHC:21171 ] 1 C. M.P. No.542 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.542 of 2026 ------ Preeti Kumari, aged about 33 years, wife of Abhishek Kumar and daughter of Late Arun Kumar, present resident of A/3, Block A, Phase VI, Maa Durga Apartment, Parsudih, PO & P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, State Jharkhand and Permanent Resident of village- Kanjhia, P.O. and P.S. – Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. … Petitioner Versus Abhishek Kumar, son of Sadanand Singh, aged about -39 years, by faith- Hindu, by occupation job in Railway, presently residing at- A- 14/107, UCIL Colony, Turmadih, P.O. + P.S.- Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-832107, permanent Address- Gali No.3, Near Purani Durga Sthan, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar-813213. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate. : Mr. Krishna Murari Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 8838 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing. 3. Since the hearing of this C.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No.542 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. [2026:JHHC:21171 ] 2 C. M.P. No.542 of 2026 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 592 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein; who was the respondent before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, filed with a prayer that the petition dated 19.05.2025 filed by the respondent before the Additional Family Court-I, to be treated as a counter-claim in Original Suit No. 592 of 2022 filed by the respondent herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner herein. 3. The undisputed fact remains that when the said petition was filed by the respondent, the said proceeding of the Original Suit No. 592 of 2022 was at the stage of final argument of the case, consequent upon conclusion of evidence being led from the side of the petitioner as well as the respondent and at the fag end of the case, the petition for a counter- claim with the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner herein with the respondent-husband herein, in terms of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. 4. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court- I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr. [2026:JHHC:21171 ] 3 C. M.P. No.542 of 2026 Surendra Agnihotri (AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1525) decided on 19.11.2019 by a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; wherein in para 18, the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in no uncertain manner observed that “we are of the considered opinion that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counterclaim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially; as it would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the objects and reasons for the particular amendment to the CPC and as petition to treat the same as a counterclaim was filed at a belated stage, dismissed the same. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is bad in law and hence, fit to be set aside. Hence, the prayer as prayed for in this C.M.P. be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the undisputed facts remains after conclusion of the evidence of both the sides, when the case was fixed for final argument of the Original Suit No. 592 of 2022, the petition to be treated as a counterclaim was filed by the respondent of that case and in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra versus Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri (Supra), learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur having rejected the same. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, it is submitted that this C.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. [2026:JHHC:21171 ] 4 C. M.P. No.542 of 2026 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the settled principle of law as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri (AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1525), has in no uncertain terms, held that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counterclaim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially and in this case not only the issues are framed but the evidence of both the sides were closed when the counterclaim was sought to be filed. So, under such circumstances, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur having rejected the prayer to treat the petition as counterclaim, this Court do not find any illegality in the same warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this C.M.P. being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th July, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on- 20/07/2026