IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 in I.A. No. 2 of 2023 in O.P. No. 578 of 2023 on the files of the Family Court, North Paravur, by which the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the written statement was allowed.

2. Short facts are as under. For the sake of ease and clarity, the parties shall be described as per their status before the Family Court:

(a) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The Original Petition was filed seeking to pass a decree declaring the matrimonial status of the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

(b) The respondent filed a written statement on 18.12.2019 contending inter alia that the marriage solemnized between the parties was neither legal nor in accordance with the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 and in that view of the matter, no declaration, as prayed for, can be granted.

(c) While so, the respondent filed an application to amend Ext.P2 written statement.

(d) A detailed counter statement was filed pointing out that the amendment sought, if allowed, will change the entire nature of the case and the attempt of the respondent was to resile from his earlier version and put up new contentions. It was contended that in respect of various assertions made by the petitioner in the petition, in the earlier written statement, only an evasive denial was made and if that be the case, those averments are deemed to have been admitted.

3. We have heard Sri. G. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Yash Thomas Mannully, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri. G. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterated the contentions in the petition. He contended that the Family Court had erred in allowing the amendment application. Even a casual perusal of the amendment application permitted to be incorporated would reveal that the attempt of the respondent was to set up a totally new case which was inconsistent from the earlier pleading. The learned counsel would refer to Order VI Rule 17 and Order VIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was argued that the respondent cannot be permitted to take away the admissions in the earlier pleadings. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel would rely on the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameshwaram Pillai and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another vs. Ladha Ram and Co. (1976) 4 SCC 320.

5. Sri. Yash Thomas Mannully, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had initially filed a written statement. He later felt that certain further clarifications had to be provided and it was in the said circumstances that the application was filed. The learned counsel points out that the Family Court has only partly allowed the application and had permitted only the inclusion of paragraph Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 14, 15 and paragraphs 24 and 25. This was on the premise that the amendment, which was sought to be incorporated was necessary to determine the real question in controversy and it was required for effective and proper adjudication on the controversy between the parties. The learned counsel would also highlight the contours of power exercisable by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is argued that unless the order passed by the Family Court is blatantly perverse or has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, no interference is warranted. The learned counsel would also rely on the principles laid down in B.K. Narayana Pillai (supra), Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another (supra), Heeralal vs. Kalyan and Others, 1998 (1) SCC 278 and Usha Balashabeb Swami and Others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others, 2007 (5) SCC 602.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the entire records.

7. We find that the Original Petition was filed by the petit