2026:APHC:8738 APHC010666702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3598 of 2025 Between:

Katukuri Bindu Swetha and another ...Petitioners and Katukuri Thej Swaroop alias Katuturi Teja Swaroop ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners:

1. O. Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondent:

Nil The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.06.2025 dismissing I.A.No.483 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the petitioners under Section 10(3) of Family Court‟s Act, 1984 to permit the petitioners to make the following amendments:

“1. Delete the words at para No.3 of the main petition in F.C.O.P.No.40/2023 “K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu” and Insert the word “Thirumala” and, later on get together at KTR Function Hall, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu.

2. Delete the words “November, 2021” and Insert the figures “02-06-2019”

3. Add para No.5(a) to be added after para No.5 before para No.6.

5(a) It is humbly submitted that the 1^st petitioner was not a employee at the time of filing the above F.C.O.P.No.40/2023 before this Hon‟ble (sic „Hon‟ble Court‟) and before this said petition, she worked as Software employee and later on resigned for the said job due to acute back pain and knee pain and therefore the petitioner is (sic „has‟) no source of independent income to maintain herself and her minor son i.e., 2^nd petitioner as stated earlier in the main petition.

2. The petitioners filed F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2023 against the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioners originally pleaded that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was performed at K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty, but now seeks to amend the same as the place of marriage is at Thirumala, whereas get together was held at K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty. Similarly, the petitioners pleaded at para No.4 of the petition that in the month of November, 2021, the respondent had driven out the petitioners from his house, whereas now, the petitioners seek substitution of the date „02.06.2019‟ for „November, 2021‟. Further, the petitioners sought addition of para No.5(a) noted above regarding status of the income of the petitioner No.1 as on the date of filing of the impugned petition. The petitioners contended that these amendments are required as the proposed amendments Nos.1 and 2 were not originally pleaded due to oversight.

3. No counter has been filed to the petition. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition after hearing both the parties, observing as follows:

“Heard both sides. The present petition is filed at the stage of enquiry. It is her duty to mention all the pleadings which are essential. The petitioner shall not be permitted to amend the petition at the stage of enquiry. Whether she is doing job or not are within her personal knowledge. She can not be permitted to amend the petition by adding that she is not doing any job at the time of filing of F.C.O.P. The petition is coming for enquiry since 1 ½ year. Without adducing any evidence she has been dragging the case and filed this petition at belated stage. The petition is filed belated stage, hence not maintainable.

In view of above discussion, there are no grounds to allow the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed contending that the amendments can be permitted to be made to correct the typographical mistakes and clarify the material facts at any stage, provided they don‟t change nature of the case as held by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others ¹ and that the amendm