Rameshwari Verma @ Khushbu vs Pradeep Kumar Verma

This  Petition  has  been  filed  challenging  the  order  dated 21.10.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in case No.426/2018 whereby, the application filed by the Petitioner/wife under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement filed by her regarding subsequent developments which occurred during the pendency of the divorce Petition filed by the Respondent/husband, has been dismissed.

Shri Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the divorce Petition filed by the Respondent/husband, both the parties have entered into a compromise and also decided to live together and the Respondent/husband took away his wife with him and they both started residing together in his house from 10.02.2020 till 02.08.2022. He further submits that before commencement of the cross-examination of the Plaintiff and during preparation for recording of the evidence, it has been revealed that material pleadings have not been brought on record, therefore, an application for amendment in the written statement has been moved for bringing the subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of the suit, which is necessary to resolve the controversy, but the same has been rejected in an arbitrary manner by the Court below, therefore, the impugned order may be quashed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition.

In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, the principles for consideration of the amendment application has been summarized and it has been observed that delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer and where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the Court is required to be liberal in its approach and the Court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment and as such where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. It has been further observed that equally, where the amendment is necessary for the Court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute and it has been alleged that during pendency of the divorce Petition, some compromise took place and both the parties started living together for a substantial period of time, therefore, the said material facts are essential to be brought on record.

In view of above, the impugned order rejecting the application seeking amendment is found to be unjustified and accordingly, the same is quashed. The Court below is directed to allow the said application and provide an opportunity to the other side for necessary consequential amendment in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the instant Petition stands disposed of.