IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the original pleadings and not allowing amendments that introduce new cases or retract admissions, especially if they nullify the opposing party's defense.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The Appeal bearing no. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2022 has been preferred by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, thereby challenging the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Family Court in CS No.1/2020, whereby his application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.01.2005. Due to disputes between the parties, they separated in June, 2018.

3. In the year 2020, the husband filed a suit bearing no. CS(OS)1/2020 for Declaration of Title and Possession in respect of A-14-S, Delhi Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property') and restraining the wife from creating any third party interest or to alienate the suit property. The husband claimed that the immovable suit property was purchased on 12.06.2012 in the name of the wife and though both of them had jointly obtained loan for purchase of the suit property, however, all the payments of loan were paid by him only. He had further claimed that the property transaction was benami in nature and fell under Section 2(9)(A)(b) exception (iii) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The husband averred before the learned Family Court that since October, 2017, behaviour of his wife changed and they used to frequently fight. He therefore, sought a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property, since he had made the payments of the entire consideration amount.

4. The wife in her Written Statement, stated that the property was purchased in the joint names of the parties and the money for the purchase of the property was given by her and her parents. She stated that she had sold her jewelry for this purpose and that no money was paid by the husband. She vehemently denied that the husband had purchased the property in her name and sought dismissal of the suit for Declaration of Title and Possession filed by the husband.

5. During pendency of the said suit, the husband filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, before the framing of issues in the suit. The following amendments were sought by him:

i) In paragraph 3 (ii)(e) of the plaint, he sought to delete "Insurance and Pollution Certfificate amount was paid by plaintiff/husband".

ii) Additions in paragraph 3 (ii)(e) of the plaint reading as under:

"Para 3(iii): Property transaction was benami in nature and falls under section 2(9) (A) (b) exception (iii) of The Prohibition of Benami Property transaction Act, 1988. It was not the intention of the Plaintiff/husband to create any benefit, any right in the immovable property to the defendant/wife. In this regards Sale Deed is annexed as `ANNEXURE P-1', release deed is annexed as `ANNEXURE P-2' AND Sanction letter of home loan, Home loan payment, EMI payment by plaintiff husband and related documents are annexed herewith for kind consideration of this Hon'ble court as `ANNEXURE P-3 (Colly.)'.

INSERT-

"At the instance of wife, plaintiff released his share of property in the favour of Co-owner/wife, who is defendant herein. Benami property transaction and release deed was done in order to maintain peaceful family atmosphere of trust & confidence. But at the time of execution of release deed the plaintiff could not foresee the real intention of defendant/wife; who was aspiring to take undue advantage of innocence of husband/plaintiff. The subsequent event of filing police complaint dated 18.06.2018 by defendant/wife exhibits the real intention of the defendant to take control of the property and render the husband in a miserable condition. This conduct of defendant prima facie exhibit fraudulent intention on her part"

iii) To substitute Prayer in Para 4 (b) of the plaint from, "To award the cost of the suit" to "set aside the release deed and award the cost of the suit".

6. While dismissing the