The consistent stand of a party in a counter statement, especially when it includes a clear admission, cannot be overridden by reasons cited for amendment based on extraneous factors such as religious doctrine.

This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 28 July 2009 in I.A.No.703/2004 in O.P.No.44/2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, whereby and where under the application filed by the revision petitioner for the purpose of amending the counter statement was dismissed.

2. The proceedings in IDOP No.44/2008 was initiated by the respondent against the revision petitioner praying for a decree of divorce invoking Section 13 (1)(x) of the Christian Divorce Act.

3. The matrimonial proceeding was resisted by the revision petitioner by filing counter.

4. The petitioner has denied the entire allegations levelled against him. However, ultimately, the petitioner has stated that in the interest of both the families, he has no option but to give his consent for divorce. The petitioner has also prayed for an Order dissolving the marriage which took place on 27.01.2005.

5. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.703/2009 praying for an Order to amend the counter statement. The petition filed for amendment reads thus :-

"... Court may be pleased to permit me to amend the 2nd para in page 5 of my counter as "to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs" instead of "to allow the petitioner for divorce dissolving the marriage that took place on 27.01.2005".

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.703/2009 it was the contention of the petitioner that his father who is a Parish Priest and other well-wishers wanted him to settle the matter amicably. It was further stated that he is a true catholic and as per its doctrine, marriage is a holy sacrament and a consummated marriage can never be dissolved. Therefore, the petitioner wanted the counter affidavit to be amended for the purpose of substituting the prayer as found in 2nd paragraph of page 5. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter.

7. According to the respondent, petitioner is estopped from resiling from the admission made earlier and the Canon laws cannot be taken advantage of for the purpose of amendment of the pleadings. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the application.

8. The learned Principal District Judge found that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the basis of the averments as found in the affidavit filed in support of the application and accordingly, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the unsuccessful petitioner in I.A.No.703/2009 is before this Court.

9. The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a case for the purpose of amendment of his counter statement.

10. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner on 20 October 2008, he has specifically denied the contentions raised in the divorce petition. Petitioner has denied each and every acts alleged against him, which were taken as the basis for seeking divorce. However, after such denial, the petitioner has clearly stated that the respondent has approached the Court for a decree of divorce and in the interest of both the families, he has no option but to give consent for divorce. Similarly, in the last paragraph of the counter, the petitioner has specifically prayed for allowing the application by a decree of divorce.

11. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for divorce, it was not the case of the petitioner that the averments as found in paragraph 2 of page 5 of the counter was inadvertently made or it was a mistake. The petitioner still maintains that what was stated in paragraph 2 of Page 5 was correct. However, the counter was sought to be amended on account of the Canon Law which says that consummated marriage can never be dissolved. Those reasons cannot be the basis for an application for amendment. There is a clear admission in the counter to the effect that the petitioner has no objection for granting a decree of divorce. It is not as if conse