Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Sushma Rameshwar Ubale, challenged an order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana, allowing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the respondent, Mr. Rameshwar Keshao Ubale, seeking amendment to his Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce. The marriage was solemnized on 09.12.1993. In 2003, the respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging desertion by the petitioner since the Holi Festival of 1994. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the claim and stating that the respondent had deserted her since 19.06.1997. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition. The respondent appealed (Regular Civil Appeal No.151/2007). During the appeal, the respondent sought to amend the petition to add that the petitioner suffered from a skin disease called Impetigo Contasium and that the respondent had purchased property in Chikhli in the name of the petitioner's father on an understanding that the petitioner would sign a consent divorce deed. The first appellate court allowed the amendment. The petitioner argued that the amendment introduced a new case and a new cause of action unconnected with the original ground of desertion. The respondent contended that the amendment was necessary to decide the real controversy. The High Court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action; the ground of desertion remained the same, and the new facts were relevant to the issue of desertion. The court found that the amendment was necessary for the real controversy and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order allowing the amendment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Appellate Stage - The court considered whether an amendment introducing new facts (skin disease and property transaction) in a divorce petition at the appellate stage changes the nature of the suit or introduces a new cause of action. Held that the amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy and did not change the nature of the suit, as the ground of desertion remained the same. (Paras 2-5) B) Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Desertion - Section 13(1)(i)(b) - The respondent husband sought divorce on the ground of desertion. The proposed amendment sought to add allegations of the wife's skin disease and a property transaction. The court held that these facts were relevant to the issue of desertion and did not introduce a new cause of action. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court was justified in allowing an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC at the appellate stage, when the amendment sought to introduce new facts regarding the wife's skin disease and a property transaction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the first appellate court allowing the amendment. The court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action; the ground of desertion remained the same, and the new facts were relevant to the issue of desertion.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings at appellate stage
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(i)(b)
- Desertion
- New cause of action
- Real controversy
