The court affirmed that amendments to complaints under the Domestic Violence Act can be allowed to correct clerical errors, emphasizing the need to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court in COMA-447-2021 dated 16.06.2021 titled as Manjit Kaur and another Vs. Pankaj Kumar and others, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the complaint/petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 who is the wife of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 who is the minor son of the petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P-1) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Domestic Violence Act”) against the present petitioner and other persons. In the said application, although detailed averments with respect to the details of the marriage and other relevant factors were made but apparently on account of an inadvertent mistake, the columns for monetary reliefs which were to be filled up were inadvertently left blank. A reply (Annexure P-2) was filed to the said complaint/application (Annexure P-1).

3. On realising the inadvertent mistake made on account of an oversight, an amendment application dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) was filed in which it was stated that inadvertently and due to an oversight, monetary reliefs in para 3, sub para (iii), sub para (iv) and the other sub paras under Section 20 were left blank, even though they were required to be filled up and accordingly, the said blanks were filled up. A reply (Annexure P-4) was filed to the said application (Annexure P-3) and the trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) had allowed the said application (Annexure P-3) subject to the payment of costs of Rs.500/-. While allowing the said application, the trial Court had observed that in the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, the allegations of cruelty and domestic violence were detailed but since the complaint was filed according to the proforma prescribed for filing of an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the various headings under which monetary relief was being sought was mentioned in the complaint but however, the amounts under the various heads were not specified and all the said entries were left blank and the explanation offered that the same was due to inadvertence and oversight was convincing as otherwise there was no reason for the complainant/respondent No. 1 to not have mentioned/specified the amounts claimed under different headings. It was observed that apparently it was on account of negligence of the counsel who had drafted the complaint that the said fields were left blank and that the complainant could not be penalized for the same. It was further observed that in effect filling in the blanks does not even constitute an amendment as the same is correction of a typographical/clerical error/omission and since the case was at the initial stage, thus, the said omission could be rectified. The sole argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the appropriate course for the respondents/complainant was to withdraw the complaint and then file a fresh one was rejected by observing that sending the respondents/complainant back would not serve any purpose and would only amount to unnecessarily delaying the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on three grounds. The first ground raised is that the application for amendment/correction of errors is not maintainable as the present case is under the Domestic Violence Act. The second argument raised is that even in case the amendment is to be allowed, then, the same could not be ordered to be retrospective but could only be ordered to be prospective. The third argument raised is the same as the one raised before the trial Court to the effect that in a situation where respondent N