Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, E. Raghunathan, and the respondent, R. Sarala, were married on 03.05.1995 and are an estranged couple. The petitioner had previously filed M.C.No.543/1999 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, which was dismissed on 22.08.2002, and the appeal MFA.No.6670/2002 was rejected on 26.10.2006. The respondent then filed M.C.No.2074/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner filed a statement of objections along with a counter claim under Section 23-A of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on 08.02.2011. The trial was completed and the case was at the stage of hearing of arguments when the petitioner filed I.A.No.10 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of his written statement and counter claim. The Family Court dismissed the application on 20.06.2014, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, found that the trial had concluded and the application was filed at a belated stage without due diligence. The court held that the Family Court's order was justified and dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after trial - The petitioner sought to amend his written statement and counter claim at the stage of arguments after trial was complete. The court held that the amendment could not be allowed as the trial had concluded and the application was filed without due diligence. The Family Court's dismissal was upheld. (Paras 1-4)
B) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Counter claim for divorce - Section 23-A Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The respondent wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner husband filed a counter claim under Section 23-A seeking divorce. The amendment sought to incorporate additional grounds for divorce after trial. The court held that the amendment was belated and not maintainable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement and counter claim filed at the stage of arguments after the trial had concluded.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the order of the Family Court dated 20.06.2014 dismissing I.A.No.10.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings after trial
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955
- Section 23-A Hindu Marriage Act 1955
- Restitution of conjugal rights
- Counter claim for divorce
- Delay and laches
- Due diligence
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (09) 2
Writ Petition No.38982/2014 (GM-FC)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Family Court dismissing an application for amendment of pleadings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.2074/2009 on I.A.No.10 and allow the said application.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for amendment of his written statement and counter claim under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by the Family Court.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner's earlier divorce petition M.C.No.543/1999 was dismissed on 22.08.2002 and the appeal MFA.No.6670/2002 was rejected on 26.10.2006.
Issues
Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement and counter claim filed at the stage of arguments after the trial had concluded.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to incorporate additional grounds for divorce and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
An application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed after the trial has concluded and at the stage of arguments, especially when the application is filed without due diligence and at a belated stage.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 20.06.2014 passed in M.C.No.2074/2009 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.
By the said order, I.A.No.10, filed by the petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w S.151 CPC was dismissed.
Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 03.05.1995.
Respondent filed M.C.No.2074/2009, under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights.
Petitioner filed on 08.02.2011, statement of objections along with counter claim, under S.23-A of the Act, seeking decree of dissolution of marriage.
Trial of the case being complete and when the case was at the stage of hearing of arguments, I.A.No.10 was filed, seeking amendment of the written statement and counter claim.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed M.C.No.543/1999 for divorce which was dismissed on 22.08.2002; appeal MFA.No.6670/2002 was rejected on 26.10.2006. The respondent then filed M.C.No.2074/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner filed objections and counter claim on 08.02.2011. After trial, at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.10 for amendment, which was dismissed on 20.06.2014. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 9, Section 23-A
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
