Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized on 1.3.1987 between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband under Hindu rites, with a child born on 3.5.1990. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in 2007, alleging cruelty. The wife filed a written statement in 2008, alleging the husband had an illicit relationship with another woman. During cross-examination in 2017, it emerged that the husband had married this woman on 14.12.2006, during the subsistence of the first marriage, and had a son from this union, facts he had suppressed. The wife then filed an application (Exhibit 281) to amend her written statement to add paragraphs 35 and 36 detailing the second marriage and paragraph 37 seeking a counter-claim for a declaration that the second marriage was void under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court partly allowed the amendment, permitting paragraphs 35 and 36 but rejecting paragraph 37. The wife challenged this rejection via a writ petition (SCA No. 11379/2018), while the husband challenged the allowance of paragraphs 35 and 36 via another writ petition (SCA No. 16101/2018). The High Court, by a common order dated 27.09.2019, allowed the husband's petition and dismissed the wife's petition, holding the amendment was belated and suggesting a separate suit for the declaration. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the High Court erred in rejecting the amendment application on grounds of delay and whether a counter-claim for declaratory relief under Section 23A could be incorporated via amendment. The wife argued that the delay was due to the husband's suppression of the marriage fact, discovered only in 2017, and that amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The husband likely contended the amendment was delayed and prejudicial. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act. It emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed to decide the real controversy, and delay alone is not fatal if no prejudice is caused. The court noted the husband's suppression of material facts and held that the amendment, including the counter-claim, was essential to bring all relevant facts before the court and prevent multiple suits. It set aside the High Court's order, allowed the wife's appeal, and permitted the amendment as per paragraphs 35, 36, and 37, directing the Family Court to proceed with the case on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Delay in Amendment - Wife sought amendment to written statement in divorce petition to add counter-claim for declaration that husband's second marriage is void - High Court rejected amendment as belated - Supreme Court held delay not fatal if amendment necessary for deciding real controversy and no prejudice caused - Amendment allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (Paras 1-6). B) Family Law - Hindu Marriage - Counter-Claim Under Section 23A Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Declaration of Void Marriage - Wife applied to amend written statement to include counter-claim seeking declaration that husband's second marriage during subsistence of first marriage is void - High Court dismissed application, suggesting separate suit - Supreme Court held counter-claim permissible under Section 23A to avoid multiplicity of litigation - Amendment permitted to incorporate declaratory relief (Paras 1-6). C) Evidence Law - Suppression of Material Facts - Fraud on Court - Husband suppressed fact of second marriage in divorce petition - Wife discovered during cross-examination in 2017 - Supreme Court noted suppression as relevant factor justifying amendment - Held that amendment necessary to bring true facts on record (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the wife's writ petition and allowing the husband's writ petition, thereby rejecting the wife's application for amendment of written statement to include a counter-claim seeking declaration that the husband's second marriage is void under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of delay.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's impugned judgment and order, and permitted the appellant-wife to amend the written statement as per paras 35, 36, and 37 of Exhibit 281. The Family Court is directed to decide the case on merits.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Counter-claim under Section 23A Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Delay in amendment application
- Suppression of material facts
- Declaratory relief for void marriage
