An amendment of pleadings may be allowed even after the trial has commenced if the omission was inadvertent, the amendment is clarificatory, does not introduce a new cause of action, and is necessary for the effective adjudication of the real controversy.

[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 IN IA 2/2025 IN OP NO.741 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM]

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

J.Nisha Banu, J.

This O.P(FC) is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 14.01.2026 in I.A.No.02/2025 in O.P.No.741/2019 for amendment of the petition, filed before the Family Court, Ottappalam. The respondents herein are the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner.

The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 22.08.2010 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The original petition was filed by the wife seeking return of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with cash and articles entrusted at the time of marriage and thereafter, which are alleged to be in the custody of the respondents. According to the petitioner/wife, during the joint trial of the connected matrimonial proceedings, the examination of the wife as PW1 revealed that material particulars regarding the date of entrustment and the existence and use of a joint locker had been inadvertently omitted from the pleadings. To rectify the inadvertent omissions and ensure effective adjudication of the real controversy, the wife filed I.A. No. 2 of 2025 seeking amendment of the pleadings. According to the petitioner/wife, the proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the disputes and does not introduce any new cause of action.

However, the Family Court dismissed I.A. No. 2 of 2025, holding that the petitioner- wife had failed to substantiate any valid reason warranting the amendment of the pleadings, and the trial had commenced. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner/wife has approached this court with the above OP(FC).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records placed before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that the omission in the original petition to mention the date of entrustment and the existence and use of the joint locker was inadvertent and sought for an opportunity to amend the original petition. It was also submitted that it was only clarificatory in nature and no new cause of action arose if the amendment was allowed.

The learned counsel for the second respondent, however, opposed the prayer put forward by the petitioner - wife. Further, it is submitted that if the amendment petition is allowed, the respondents also may be directed to file an additional written statement before the Family Court.

It is true that the original petition was filed in the year 2019. On a perusal of the application, it is seen that there was omission on the part of the petitioner to incorporate the pleadings regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments, cash and articles at the time of marriage and the said omission was not intentional.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the OP(FC) is to be allowed, by setting aside the impugned order, and permitting the petitioner to amend the original petition. The respondents should also be given an opportunity to file an additional written statement before the trial court. Therefore, the original petition is disposed of as follows:-

1. The order dated 14.01.2026 in I.A.No.02/2025 passed by the Family Court, Ottappalam is hereby set aside.

2. I.A.No.02/2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to amend the original petition as sought for in I.A.No.02/2025.

3. The respondents shall be permitted to file an additional written statement, after the amendment is carried out by the petitioner.