The court ruled that amendments to petitions under the Domestic Violence Act can be allowed to reflect changed circumstances without requiring proof of domestic violence at the amendment stage.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the respondent, in Crl.A.No.203/2024, is directed against the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, whereby said appeal filed by the respondent under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘PWDV Act’) was allowed by the Sessions Judge.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner, instituted proceedings in C.Misc.45/2015 against the petitioner under Section of the 12 of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (Act No.43 of 2005). The petitioner has entered appearance and is contesting the said proceedings and after trial, at the stage of final argument, respondent filed an application seeking amendment of the main petition by seeking enhancement to the compensation claimed by her from Rs.2 crore to Rs.5 crore. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner-husband, the trial Court passed an order dated 19.04.2024 rejecting the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.203/2024, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 06.12.2024, thereby permitting amendment by holding as under:

“The Appellant being the petitioner before the Trial Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the V JMFC., Mysuru in Crl. Mis. 220/2020 filed U/s 13 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005, has preferred this appeal and prays to set aside the order dated: 19.04.2024 by allowing the appeal.

2. The rank of the parties is being referred to as referred before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The Appellant herein was the petitioner before the Trial Court. The Respondent herein was the respondent before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the application filed U/s 13 of Domestic Violence Act. It is against the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner.

4. The case of the Appellant in brief is that:

At the time filing of the petitioner compensation sought by the petitioner under different heads was crystallized at Rs.2 Crores. In view of the escalation in costs, increase in prices of properties, commodities etc., advancing of the age of the petitioner, it is essential to seek for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.2 Crores to Rs.5 Crores. In this regard the capacity of the respondent is so far as the financial status, social status and relevant aspects are taken into consideration in seeking for such enhancement. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the proceedings or alter the cause of action. With all these contentions prays to allow the application.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent filed objections stating that, the present application is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the application is misconceived and untenable under law. The grounds urged for the claim of enhancement of compensation from Rs.2 Crores to Rs.5 Crores are baseless and untenable in law. The proposed amendment does not relate to a simple infirmity but exposes the greedy nature of the petitioner to harass the respondent. The proposed amendment if allowed would cause serious prejudice to the case already pleaded by the respondent. It has come in the course of evidence that the parties have hardly stayed together or shared residence. When the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of compensation already claimed, the question of enhancement of the same does not arise at all. With all these contentions prays to dismiss the application with costs.

6. Highly aggrieved with the impugned order of the trial court, the present respondent has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

1. It is submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable since the Trial Court has not considered the reasoning made out by the Appellant in su