2025:HHC:40779 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMPMO No. 686 of 2025 Decided on: 28.11.2025 ___________________________________________._________

Lakesh H ……….. Petitioner Versus Samriti Kumari ……….respondent _____________________________o_______________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.

For the respondent : Nemo.

____________________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.10.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 1580/2024, titled Lakesh Rao vs. Samriti Kumari, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment of the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the present petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order, documents appended along with the present petition.

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. From the perusal of the petition filed for divorce on 31.05.2023, it is evident that the same has been filed on the ground of cruelty. Amongst other pleas in the same, it has been alleged that false and unfounded allegationHs of extra marital relations of the present petitioner have been alleged with one lady, named Neha of District Kullu, H.P. The said Neha Thakur has been cited as a witness. Her examination-in-chief has been filed in the Court. Cross-examtination of the said witness has been deferred.

4. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 28.05.2025 is sought to be got incorporated in the petition filed sheeking divorce. Details of the incident have been narrated in gdetail in the impugned order. The said incident in the reply filed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been categorically denied.

5. The Trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, as in the considered view of the Trial Court, an amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy and for a just decision of the case. According to the trial Court, the subsequent event is outside the scope of the original matrimonial dispute and hence the same according to the trial Court was not required to be got incorporated in the petition filed, seeking divorce.

6. Other than the aforesaid, the trial Court was of the view that qua the alleged incident dated 28.05.2025, the present petitioner had an independent legal remedy, which he was free to pursue in accordance with law.

7. It is a well settled position of law that normally a Court will declare only the rights of the parties as they existed on the date of the institution of the suit. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 194, case titled Rameshwar and others vs. Jot Ram and another Relevant extract whereof reads as follows:-

6. The philosophy of the approach which commends itself to us is that a litigant who seeks justice in a perfect legal system gets it when he asks for it. Rut because human institutions of legal justice function slowly, and in quest of perfection, appeals and reviews at higher levels are provided for, the end product comes considerably late. But these higher Courts pronounce upon the rights of parties as the facts stood when the first Court was first approached. The delay of years flows from the infirmity of the judicial institution and this protraction of the Court machinery shall prejudice no one. Actus curiae neminem gravabit(1). Precedential support invoked by the appellant's counsel also lets him down provided we scan the fact situation in each of those cases and the legal propositions therein laid