IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO.29957 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. KALAVATHI,

D/O. GANAPATHYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESIDING AT MALALAGADDE VILLAGE,

MALALAGADDE POST,

SORABA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577434.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LIKITH R.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by MEGHA

MOHAN

Location: HIG H SRI. KUMARASWAMY H.V.,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

S/O. VEERAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.12, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,

KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI,

BENGALURU - 560 015.

ALSO AT:

NO.2, 5^TH FLOOR, MAHAVIR SHOPPING COMPLEX, OLD KIDS KEMP BUILDING, KG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-F ALLOWING I.A.NO.12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION IN M.C. NO.5648/2017 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in I.A.No.12 in M.C.No.5648/2017 dated 16.10.2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had allowed the application filed by the husband.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case that the respondent/husband had filed M.C.No.5648/2017 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Earlier on 22.09.2018 the Family Court had allowed the I.A. that is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings where the respondent/husband wanted to amend the pleadings with regard to the cause of action that had take place subsequent to filing of the petition. The same was allowed and the respondent/husband had brought on record the FIR and other particulars. Thereafter, the trial commenced. After the trial concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, at that point of time, the respondent/husband had come with the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings stating that the cause of action arose for filing the petition the day when the FIR was registered. The Family Court had allowed the application on the ground that already the pleadings are on record, no prejudice would be caused to the wife and allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that to fill up the latches, the present application is filed as the cause of action as stated earlier does not disclose the correct cause of action as such the present application is filed. It is submitted that during the course of cross examination the petitioner/wife could elicit from the respondent/husband that he has filed the criminal case as the wife had not accepted for the divorce. It is further submitted that the cause of action cannot be altered at this stage. Earlier I.A. was allowed on 22.09.2018, whereby the Family Court had permitted the respondent/husband to bring all the facts pertaining to FIR and other aspects, that cannot be the ground to amend the cause of action. It is further submitted that the Family Court, without any basis had allowed the application and the order impugned needs to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/

husband submits that all the facts pertaining to the FIR and other things were brought on record on 22.09.2018 itself, the petitioner/wife has no compliant and that order had attained finality. At this stage, it is not open for the petitioner/wife to raise all these grounds. It is submitted that the amendment of pleadings has to be allowed and the Family Court had rightly observed that no prejudice would be caused to the pet