A party's application for amendment of pleadings must be timely and justified; undue delays or lack of valid reasons can lead to dismissal.

ORDER :

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XI in M.C.No.4823/2017 dated 23.11.2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected I.A.No.XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. The husband had filed M.C.No.4823/2017 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. In the petition that is filed before the Family Court, it is stated that the cause of action arose on 26.01.2001 when the marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife got solemnized and thereafter, again during the year 2007 when the wife left the husband in October, 2010. The M.C. is filed in the year 2017. During the Course of trial, the present I.A. came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Now, by way of this amendment, the husband wants to amend the cause of action as when the respondent left the petitioner in October 2005 and subsequently on 27.04.2012 when the petitioner was acquitted from the case in S.C.No.884/2010 filed by the respondent and on subsequent dates. In the affidavit, it is stated that initially, the husband had filed a divorce petition against the wife which came to be numbered as M.C.No.1016/2006 on the file of VI Additional Family Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru and the wife appeared and filed her statement of objection. After conclusion of trial, the Court by judgment dated 30.06.2011 had dismissed the petition filed by the husband. The husband had challenged the judgment dated 30.06.2011 before this Court by filing MFA.No.8667/2011. During the pendency of the case, the wife had filed criminal cases against the husband and the family members. After investigation, the Police had filed the charge sheet and it is numbered as S.C.No.884/2010. By order dated 27.04.2012, the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City acquitted the husband. It is also stated that while dismissing the first petition filed by the husband against the wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion in M.C.No.1016/2006, the VI Additional Family Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru had made certain observations in paragraph Nos.21, 22 and 23 in the said case. The Court had given a finding that the grounds do not amount to cruelty. It is stated that the amendment sought, do not make material changes in the pleadings as well as the prayer made in the suit. The amendments which are sought for are only to correct the typographical errors and if the amendments sought for is allowed, it will not cause any kind of hardship to the respondent.

4. The Family Court by way of order impugned had rejected I.A.No.XI. While rejecting the said application, the Family Court had observed that the discretionary power to allow the amendment has to be exercised judiciously with great care. In this case, the husband failed to take up the incident of acquittal in S.C.No.884/2010 as cause of action to this petition for divorce and the session case was also pending during the pendency and disposal of the previous petition filed by the husband. It is not the case of the husband that the said session case ended in acquittal for the reason of false complaint filed by the wife. If at all there is an observation of the competent court of law that the wife filed a false complaint against the husband on which basis S.C.No.884/2010 was filed. The husband certainly would have filed a case against the wife for malicious prosecution. The Family Court had also observed that the husband came up with this unnecessary application for amendment at the belated stage without