The court has a wide discretion to grant amendments of pleadings in order to do complete justice between the parties and also to shorten the course of litigation. However, such discretion is judicially exercised and amendments will not be allowed if they would cause injustice to the other party which cannot be sufficiently compensated by awarding costs.

CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE, J. :- On April, 1976 the appellant husband had filed a petition in the Court of the learned District Judge, Alipore under S.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty and that she had deserted him. After the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 was enacted, the appellant husband applied in the trial court for amendment of his petition, inter alia, by substituting in place of the prayer for judicial separation a prayer for decree for dissolution of marriage under S.13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial court had allowed the said prayer for amendment. The respondent wife had contested the said suit, inter alia, denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by her husband.

2. The learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore dismissed the said suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff husband has filed the present appeal.

3. On 10th April, 1981 the appellant petitioner filed an application in this Court praying that he may be permitted to amend his original petition for divorce by inserting para 14 (a). The respondent wife has opposed the appellants prayer for amendment of the petition.

4. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant, has made three fold submissions before us. His first submission is, that, for determining and the real questions in controversy between the parties, the appellant, even, at this appellate stage, ought to be allowed to amend his petition. According to Mr. Banerjee, such amendment of the petition if allowed is not likely to cause any prejudice to the respondent wife and she might be sufficiently compensated by awarding costs in her favour. Alternatively, Mr. Banerjee has submitted that in the event this court is unwilling to allow the aforesaid application for amendment of the appellants petition for divorce, the appellant may be permitted to withdraw his said petition under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Lastly, Mr. Banerjee has submitted that in his judgment under appeal the learned Additional District Judge has not recorded necessary findings for determining the issues framed in the case.

5. Before we consider whether at this stage the appellant husband ought to be allowed to amend his petition under Sec.13, we may proceed to set out the questions which were in controversy between them in the trial court. As previously stated, the plaintiff husband had originally prayed for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty and desertion and subsequently his said petition was altered into one under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The plaintiff husband in his said petition had stated that on 17th Feb., 1973 the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised according to Hindu rites. His case was that in spite of her protest only once on 17th of March, 1973 he had cohabited with her. According to the appellant, she had conceived. The appellant further stated that from the day of the Boubhat he had realised that the respondent was mentally irritant by nature and was suffering from complexes. The appellant further stated that in early part of May, 1973 the respondent had undergone abortion on the medical advice of her cousin, Dr. Sudhamoy Seth of Chandarnagar. The appellant also alleged that he had become a victim of physical cruelty and violence as the respondent often inflicted blows and slaps on him. She had also threatened to commit suicide. On 20th May, 1975 he had desired to have sexual intercourse but she had rejected his advances and had begun to shout. She had also inflicted blows on him in the presence of the members of his family. She had allegedly expressed her desire to go to her parents house. On 23rd June, 1975 the respondent had again picked up quarrel with him, and on 24th June, 1975 she went away to her parents house with all her ornaments and articles. At the trial the petitioner husband deposed in orde