Matrimonial petition filed under wrong statute remains curable where jurisdiction exists and the substantive ground is properly pleaded.

A matrimonial petition was not to be dismissed merely because it was filed under the wrong enactment where the marriage had been solemnised under the Special Marriage Act and the court was otherwise competent to entertain the cause. The error was treated as a curable drafting defect, not a lack of inherent jurisdiction, especially where the substantive ground pleaded was cruelty and the matter had substantially progressed. The court also held that amendment of pleadings must be sought by a party under the Civil Procedure Code; a trial court cannot ordinarily direct amendment suo motu. The order was therefore disturbed only to set aside the unilateral direction for amendment, while allowing the defect to be corrected in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act could be treated as maintainable when the parties had solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act and the stated ground for divorce was also available under both enactments. (ii) Whether the trial court could, on its own motion, direct amendment of the petition instead of leaving amendment to be sought by an by a party.

Issue (i): Whether a divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act could be treated as maintainable when the parties had solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act and the stated ground for divorce was also available under both enactments.

Analysis: The error in invoking the wrong matrimonial statute was treated as a drafting defect rather than a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The same District Judge was competent to deal with matrimonial causes under both enactments, and the real question was whether the petition could be defeated merely because the wrong provision had been mentioned. The decision emphasised that matrimonial litigation should not be terminated on a hyper-technical objection where the substantive ground pleaded was cruelty and the matter had already progressed substantially. At the same time, the Court held that a plea founded on concealment or similar merit-based objections could not be used to secure dismissal at the threshold on a purely procedural objection.

Conclusion: The petition was not liable to be dismissed merely because it had been filed under the wrong matrimonial enactment, and the objection of want of inherent jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court could, on its own motion, direct amendment of the petition instead of leaving amendment to be sought by an application by a party.

Analysis: Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates amendment on application and not by a unilateral direction of the Court. The Court held that the trial court exceeded its authority in directing the respondent to amend the pleading suo motu. However, considering the long pendency of the matter and the need to avoid defeat of substantive justice because of an inadvertent drafting error, the Court balanced the procedural irregularity with a limited opportunity to cure the defect in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The trial court had no power to direct amendment suo motu, though the respondent was granted time to seek corrective amendment in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The order was interfered with only to the extent that the trial court's own-direction for amendment was held impermissible, while the matrimonial dispute was permitted to proceed with an opportunity to correct the pleading defect.

Ratio Decidendi: A matrimonial petition should not be defeated on a mere misdescription of the governing statute where the court has competence to entertain the cause and the error is curable; however, amendment of pleadings must be sought under the procedural law by a party and cannot ordinarily be directed suo motu by the court.

---