THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3644 of 2025

ORDER

:

Heard Mr.Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The present is an order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.938 of 2024 in O.P.No.1470 of 2023, which is under challenge.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the learned Family Court has allowed the petition preferred by the respondent-wife under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking for amendment of the O.P. in the light of subsequent events that took place meanwhile.

4. The petitioner-husband seems to be aggrieved of the fact that the petitioner and respondent who are governed by Muslim law and on 03.08.2023, the petitioner pronounced first Talaq to respondent- wife and second Talaq was pronounced on 11.09.2023 and third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023. Meanwhile, however, the respondent-wife had filed the O.P for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court on 25.09.2023 i.e. present OP.No.1470 of 2023. In the said OP, interim injunction was also sought and it was also granted on the same day i.e. on 25.09.2023 restraining the petitioner-husband from pronouncing third Talaq.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband further contended that the interim order dated 25.09.2023 was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and unknowing of the interim order passed by the trial Court dated 25.09.2023, third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023. It was after the third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023, the respondent-wife thought of moving an amendment petition, in addition to the restitution of conjugal rights, she has also sought for declaration of three Talaqs dated 03.08.2023, 11.09.2023 and 11.10.2023 to be null and void and not binding between the parties. After the amendment petition was filed, the petitioner-husband entered appearance and filed detailed counter affidavit objecting the amendment sought for, particularly, after the petitioner-husband has filed counter to the restitution petition and also had strongly contended that the very nature of the suit itself will be completely changed which by way of amendment would not be permissible.

6. However, a perusal of the record would go to show that the learned trial Court was of the view that when the restitution petition was filed, interim injunction was granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. in I.A.944 of 2023 not to pronounce the third Talaq and whether, knowingly or unknowingly Talaq has been pronounced, veracity of the same will have to be decided. In the said circumstances, the respondent-wife would not be required to move any other petition, but, to amend the existing petition for getting the said action of third Talaq to be declared bad in law. The fact which needs to be considered is that the Family Court matters have to be taken in a more pragmatic manner, rather than following strict technical procedures which otherwise flow from the provisions of C.P.C. As a consequence, by way of amendment in a given case the nature of suit itself may get changed. In family matters, an endeavour also has to be made to curtail multiplicity of litigations. In the instant OP was already filed by the respondent-wife, interim injunction was also granted and it is thereafter that the third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023 and which was, prima facie, contrary to the order dated

25.09.2023 passed by the Family Court, where order of restraint was in operation.

7. In the said circumstances, if the trial Court allowed the amendment petition, the same cannot be found fault with nor it can be said to be bad in law. Nonetheless, since the earlier counter that the petitioner-husband had filed before the amendment was sought and allowed. As a consequence, the petitioner-husband would be entitled to file additional counter in the light of amendment petition being allowed and the ad