Point of Law: Object of Special Law of Family Courts Act is to decide matrimonial cases in a speedy manner.

JUDGMENT :

This civil revision is directed against an order of Smt. Renu Singh, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah dated May the 31st, 2022, allowing the respondent's application, seeking amendment to his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the HMA').

2. A petition under Section 13 of HMA was instituted by the sole respondent, Ankit Dubey against the revisionist, Smt. Jyoti Dubey before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, which was numbered on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, aforesaid as HM Petition No.291 of 2017. A decree for divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty.

3. It appears that the wife, who is a resident of Etawah, has secured a transfer of proceedings from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to the Family Court at Etawah. The petition for divorce as aforesaid is pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah. This fact is not stated on record, but that is the only logical conclusion to be drawn considering that the proceedings commenced before the Family Court, Agra and are now pending at Etawah, where the revisionist-wife resides.

4. Pending the divorce petition, the respondent moved to amend it on the basis of certain supervening events that he sought to plead in order to establish his case of actionable cruelty. The aforesaid amendment application was made on 06.04.2022, which was assigned paper No. 57-Ka on the file of the Trial Court, that is to say, the Court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah. An objection to the amendment application was filed on behalf of the revisionist which was marked as paper No.65-Ga.

5. The thrust of the revisionist's objection before the Trial Court was that the amendment application being one made seeking to plead facts based on events that had occurred five years ago, the proposed amendment is highly belated which ought to be refused on that ground. Those events, even if true, would give rise to a cause of action to institute and pursue a criminal prosecution. Otherwise too, the facts sought to be pleaded were incorrect. The Trial Court by the order impugned has granted the amendment subject to payment of Rs.3000/- in costs by the respondent to the revisionist. The Trial Court has reasoned that cruelty is already a cause of action which the respondent has pleaded to found his claim for a decree of divorce, besides others. Since cruelty is already a ground pleaded in the petition, the facts sought to be brought in through amendment do not change the nature of the respondent's case. It was also remarked that issues have not been framed as yet, and, therefore, permitting the amendment would not prejudice the revisionist's case. It was also remarked that since the amendment has been sought after a long delay, it would be appropriate to compensate the other side by awarding costs.

6. Heard Mr. Gaurav Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of the motion to admit this Revision to hearing and Mr. Puneet Bhadauriya, Advocate who has opposed the motion on the question of maintainability.

7. Mr. Puneet Bhadauriya, learned Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection about the maintainability of this civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') urging that in the case of proceedings before the Family Court, governed by the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act of 1984'), no revision lies from any of its orders under Section 115 of the Code, which may otherwise be maintainable on the ground that the order is a ''case decided' within the meaning of that provision in the Code, as amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh. He submits elaborating that even if a civil revision be competent against the kind of the order impugned here, if passed by a Civil Court, it would not be maintainable since the order has been made by the Family Court governed by the provisions of the Act of 1984.