The Court upheld a dismissal of a motion for amendment under the Domestic Violence Act due to a lack of clarity in proposed changes, emphasizing the necessity of specificity in judicial submissions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947

OP(CRL.) NO. 682 OF 2023

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2023 IN MC NO.55

OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

1 SUMI KRISHNA K.S,

AGED 31 YEARS

D/O MR. KRISHNANKUTTY M. & SMT. SUNI R VAIKUNDAM’,

BAPUJI NAGAR, DURGA LANE, PONGUMOODU,

MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011

2 ADYA SANTHOSH,

AGED 9 YEARS

(MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SUMI KRISHNA K.S

D/O MS. SUMI KRISHNA & MR. SANTHOSH G VAIKUNDAM’,

BAPUJI NAGAR, DURGA LANE, PONGUMOODU,

MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011

BY ADV SHRI.A.BINOY

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SANTHOSH G.

AGED 43 YEARS

S/O MR. GANAPATHY C AND SMT. OMANA VAIKUNDAM’,

BAPUJI NAGAR, DURGA LANE, PONGUMOODU,

MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS.

SHRI.AAKHIL MOHAMMED.P.M SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ SHRI.K.P.RANADIVE OTHER PRESENT:

PP-SRI.SANAL P. RAJ THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioners in M.C No. 55 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this O.P(Crl.) against Ext.P23 order of the learned Magistrate dismissing C.M.P No. 2013 of 2023 filed by the petitioners purportedly for amending the original petitions filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .

2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the proposed amendment on the ground that the amendment application did not specifically mention which portion the petitioner wants to amend. The learned Magistrate further observed that the intention of the petitoner was to substitute a new application by way of amendment in place of the original application.

3. When this matter came up for arguments, after elaborate discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted to add Ext.P2, containing an affidavit running into 136 paragraphs and a petition filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Ext.P3, with the heading “Application to the Magistrate filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .” containing 127 paragraphs along with original petition filed under . Ext.P8 is the original petition filed under of the Domestic Violence Act, including the Domestic Incident Report, together containing 6 pages.

4. On a perusal of the entire documents, the details of the proposed amendment are not at all clear from the amendment application filed by the petitoner. The learned counsel would argue that the provisions of the CPC and Cr.P.C do not apply to proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, and as such he is not bound by those provisions, he could not specify as to what amendment is to be made in each paragraph of the original petition.

5. From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, it appears that a major amendment is requested in the original petition and as such the intention of the petitioners appears to a substitute the original petition in place of the one already filed. Since the proposed amendment does not disclose the proposed amendment in specific terms and the prayer is only to substitute a new petition in place of the original, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in Ext.P23 order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this O.P(Crl.) is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this O.P (Crl.) is dismissed. However, It is made clear that in case the petitioner files a proper application for amendment the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate.

Sd/-

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE NJ APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) NO