JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for setting aside/quashing the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Saraikella-Kharsawan in M.C.A. No. 72 of 2025 whereby and where under, the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner in Original Suit No. 66 of 2025; which was filed with the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner with the opposite party of that proceeding was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish due diligence despite the fact that the application was filed prior to framing of issues.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contending therein that he married the opposite party on 11.04.2025 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in a temple at Jamshedpur. The opposite party left the house of the petitioner without consent and permission of the petitioner and his family members with all her belongings and ornaments and on 07.07.2025 she made telephonic call and informed the petitioner that she will not restitute conjugal rites with the petitioner as she is in love and affection with some other boy with whom she will marry, hence, prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was made.

4. In her written statement the opposite party took the plea that she never married the petitioner and she has also taken the plea that the petitioner was having previous marriage with someone else and suppressing the same, the petitioner proposed to marry the opposite party. After knowledge about the petitioner’s previous marriage, opposite party closed/stopped relationship with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is threatening for forceful marriage and money and is blackmailing and creating trouble to the opposite party.

5. When the matter was fixed for reconciliation between the parties and the issues were not framed, the petitioner filed a petition to amend the petition inter alia incorporating therein that the marriage was performed between the petitioner and opposite party on 11.04.2025 according to Hindu Rites & Customs at Sarbojanin Nabo Durga Mandir, Ichhapur-Gowalapara, P.O., P.S. -R.I.T., Dist.-Seraikela Kharsawan, State -Jharkhand and has sought further amendment to incorporate the pleadings about the detail ceremonies of the marriage and incorporate the date of the opposite party leaving her matrimonial house to be on 14.04.2025 and intends to introduce pleadings by way of amendment that on 12.07.2025 and 13.07.2025 the petitioner went to the residence of the opposite party at Plot No. 204 AIIMS Nagar, Lane No. 14 Patrapada, Bhubhaneswar, Odisha, for convincing her to restore her matrimonial ties but in vain and also intends to incorporate therein additional dates i.e. on 14.04.2025 and 13.07.2025 as further causes of action and also intends to modify the prayer by specifically making additional prayers that it be declared that the petitioner and the wife are lawfully wedded wife and husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said prayer has not been properly worded and the prayer should have been that it be declared that the petitioner and the opposite party are lawfully wedded wife and husband. Further amendment has been sought to introduce the prayer that it be also declared that the opposite party without any reasonable and justifiable cause left the society of the petitioner and for restitution of conjugal right.

6. The opposite party filed an objection to the said petition for amendment denying the facts sought to be amended in the petition and also pleaded that the same has been filed with mala fide intention to prolong the litigation.

7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan discussed the principle of law regarding the power of the co