Amendments to pleadings in divorce proceedings can be permitted at any stage to ensure effective adjudication, especially when based on subsequent events, reinforcing judicial discretion in allowing such amendments.

ALOK AWASTHI, J.

1. The miscellaneous petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order 15.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Dewas in RCSA No. 08/2023, wherein an application under Order VI Rule 17 dated 15.05.2025 has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner and respondent both are husband and wife married on 06.06.2013 according to the Muslim rites at Dewas (M.P.) and out of this wedlock two daughters Ku. Iera and Ku. Iza was on 08.04.2014 and 13.12.2017 respectively, out of which Ku. lera is residing with Respondent and Ku. Iza is residing with Petitioner. Further, it is stated that the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any good and sufficient cause on 26.07.2020 and subsequently in the year 2023, has submitted civil suit for divorce and claming Maher & Stridhan under Muslim Laws.

3. The written statement has been submitted by the petitioner before the Trial Court on 17-10-2024 thereby denying all the facts of plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of suit, thereby stating that the respondent has voluntary left matrimonial home without any good and sufficient cause with their elder daughter Kr. Ira. On the basis of respective pleadings of both the parties, the Learned Trial Court has framed issues, thereafter, case was fixed for recording the evidence of the parties to the suit. On 21.01.2025 the examination of chief of respondent/Wife has been recorded be the trial Court and the documents submitted by the respondent have been exhibited on 04.03.2025 and thereafter the case fixed for cross examination of the respondent. In this sequence, the petitioner has submitted application on 15.05.2025 before the Trial Court U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement, which has been rejected by the trial Court.

4. Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has committed gross irregularity and illegality in rejecting the application. Only on the basis of irrelevant facts and without considering the fact that the same is based on subsequent event, impugned order has been passed. He has also argued that the proposed amendments are necessary to decide the matter in controversy effectually and completely to adjudicate between the parties. Hence, it is prayed that present petition be allowed by quashing the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by which application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed. He has drawn attention of this Court towards judgments Pratap and others Vs. Ganeshram and others , 2014 (2) MPLJ 464 , Nirmala Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Sharma , 2015 (3) MPLJ 93 and 2015 (1) MPLJ 92 .

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the relevant provision, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, it is specifically provided that "the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The court is to consider whether the petitioner provided sufficient grounds for amendment and whether the delay in filing the petition affects their claim".

8. The first part of the relevant provision empowers the Court to exercise discretion to order amendment of pleading at any stage of the proceedings. But the second part is imperative, that is, when the same is necessary for the purpose of determining the case in controversy between the parties. In this case, at the outset the amendment applicat