Courts must allow amendments to petitions if they clarify facts pertinent to the case, especially regarding jointly owned assets.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Pathanamthitta, because it has disallowed her request for amendment of her pleadings in Ext.P1 Original Petition, numbered as OP No.702/2020.

2. Sri.Kevin James – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client filed the aforementioned Original Petition, seeking return of her gold ornaments and money, comprising of her patrimony; and had averred therein specifically that the same were entrusted to the respondent, who then placed them in a bank locker operated by the parties jointly.

3. Sri.Kevin James pointed out that, however, in paragraph six of the Original Petition, his client omitted to say that the key of the bank locker was with her only until October 2017, when the respondent returned to India from his employment abroad, to take it from her; and that it is this which is now sought to be clarified through the application, along with certain other corollary and necessary changes. He argued that the learned Family Court, however, had dismissed his client’s application without proper thought; and hence, she has been constrained to approach this Court through this Original Petition.

4. Sri.Manu Ramachandran – learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that the amendment has been sought at a time after the petitioner had offered evidence as PW1; in which, she made a volte-face to say that the key of the locker had been with her till October 2017, to be handed over by her to the respondent thereafter. He contended that the amendment is only an afterthought, to explain how she was able to operate the locker till October or November 2017, even when she conceded in her Original Petition that the keys to it were with his client. He predicated that the learned Family Court, therefore, has acted without error; and prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

5. We have evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials on record and the impugned order.

6. It is without doubt - as is conceded –

that, in Ext.P1 Original Petition, the petitioner said that all her patrimony, including gold and money, were entrusted with the respondent, who placed it in a bank locker jointly owned by the parties and that he had retained its keys. When she testified as PW1, she clarified that the keys were, in fact, with her till October 2017; and that, when the respondent returned to India thereafter, it were taken away from her by him.

7. The specific argument of the respondent is that the amendments have been sought in order to escape the rigour of the admissions made by the petitioner, particularly that she had operated the locker until October and November 2017; thus validating his case that she herself had taken away the gold.

8. Before we move forward, we notice that, in Ext.P4, the amendments sought are not merely with respect to the alleged entrustment of the keys of the locker to the respondent after October 2017; but also that she seeks the market value of the gold ornaments, as also to recover them from the petitioner and his properties.

9. It is well settled through several judgments of this Court, including xxx v. xxx [2025 KHC 781], that, in normal cases, it is incumbent upon Courts, while allowing a prayer for return of gold, to offer its market value as on the date of realization. We do not, therefore, think that the amendment qua the same; as also for a plea that it be recovered from the petitioner and his assets, could have been declined.

10. Further, the petitioner seeks to alter the number of the Bank Locker from ‘73/1’ to ‘73/B’. This, we do not thi