ORDER :

1. The petitioner, father of a minor boy aged about 12 years, has filed these petitions as his applications in G & W.C. No. 36/2015 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City are rejected.

2. The petitioner’s first application (I.A. No. 4) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) is for amendment of the petition filed by him under the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with provisions of Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The proposed amendment is to substitute the aforesaid provisions with provisions of Sections 7 & 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and to include the circumstances, which according to the petitioner is only a further elucidation of what is already stated in the petition to disqualify the respondent-mother of the child from the custody. This application in IA No. IV is rejected by the learned Family Court judge vide the impugned order dated 7th October, 2016. The petitioner’s other application (I.A. No. 5) filed under Section 151 of CPC for interim custody of the minor child is allowed in part by another impugned separate order dated 7th October, 2016. The petitioner vide this order on IA No. 5 is granted visitation rights to visit the child on alternative Sundays between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. with prior intimation to the respondent and at a place that is convenient and closer to the respondent’s residence.

3. This Court, as regards the petitioner’s visitation rights, has granted interim order and the last such interim order is on 25.04.2017. The interim order dated 25.04.2017 reads as under:

“This Court by order dated 27.03.2017 has made an interim arrangement for visitation rights during the weekends.

Though the same has been exercised there are different versions as to whether the child was comfortable or not. In any event, the effort made by this Court by providing such visitation right was to enable the child to develop affinity and affection towards the petitioner-father. The said process certainly will take some time and in that view even if there are some minor differences, the same will have to be ironed out and the process will have to be smoothened. Therefore, it would be appropriate to continue the same arrangement during all the week ends until the petition is taken up once again for consideration.

In this regard, it is however made clear that while exercising the visitation right if the child is comfortable with the petitioner and if the child expresses the desire to spend the night with the father on the first day of the week end as granted i.e. Saturday night, the mother shall permit the child.

It is further emphasized by way of caution that the same will be at the request of the child and if such request is made by the child, the mother shall not oppose the same.

The visitation shall be exercised in the manner as ordered on 27.03.2017.

List during the second week of June.”

4. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the rejection of the application for amendment contended that the learned Family Court Judge has rejected the application perfunctorily on the ground that the petitioner is introducing an altogether new case, ignoring the nature of the proposed amendment and the circumstances in which the proposed amendment is sought for.

5. On the other hand Sri. Manjunatha Sreedhara Hegde, the learned Counsel on behalf of Sri. Adarsh Gangal, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order rejecting the application for amendment. The learned counsel firstly contended that the application is filed on the ground that the petition suffers from a formal defect: if indeed a petition suffers from formal defect, the appropriate course for the petitioner would be under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 Sub-Rule (3) of CPC viz. filing an application for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a