Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Kasaragod, since it has allowed I.A.No.2/2025 filed by the respondent in O.P.No.669/2024 - which had been earlier filed by her before the Court seeking divorce on certain grounds.

2. The specific case of the petitioner, as available from the pleadings, is that the learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the amendments – whereby, the provision impelled has been altered to be Section 10 (1) (x) of the Indian Divorce Act ; and the cause of action has been altered to be 14.03.2023, instead of 14.03.2024 - because the trial of the cases had already begun, with the respondent having offered herself as a witness.

3. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore contentions of the petitioner for the singular reason that a mere alteration of the provision cited in the Original Petition, would be of no consequence, because the new provision must correlate to the pleadings and the evidence on record. The mere change of the cited Section, from Section 10 (1) (ix), to Section 10 (1) (x), would in no manner change the nature of the litigation, since, to be granted relief, it must be e