Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Kunal Sudhir Sangani VS Ishita Sangani...

Kunal Sudhir Sangani VS Ishita Sangani - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 529 : The court allows the parties to file an amendment petition in the pending petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to delete allegations and make necessary amendments in the petition in terms of Section 13B, including incorporating subsequent events after the institution of the mutual consent divorce matter. The court permits such amendments if they are consistent with the settlement reached between the parties and the requirements of Section 13B, particularly when the parties have already agreed on terms such as permanent alimony and withdrawal of claims.Checking relevance for Benazeer Heena VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for Vennangot Anuradha Samir VS Vennangot Mohandas Samir...

Checking relevance for Ashok Hurra VS Rupabipinzaveri: Rupa Ashok Hurra...

Ashok Hurra VS Rupabipinzaveri: Rupa Ashok Hurra - 1997 3 Supreme 35 : The court held that despite the wife''''s withdrawal of consent, the cumulative effect of the case—such as the marriage being dead both emotionally and practically, no chance of revival, long lapse of years since filing, and the husband''''s remarriage during pendency—warranted exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even though consent was withdrawn, by considering subsequent events and the totality of circumstances. This indicates that amendments to mutual consent (MC) divorce proceedings can be considered to incorporate subsequent events after institution, especially when the marriage is irretrievably broken and justice demands it.Checking relevance for SMRUTI PAHARIYA VS SANJAY PAHARIYA...

Checking relevance for Amardeep Singh VS Harveen Kaur...

Checking relevance for Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji VS Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari...

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji VS Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari - 2016 4 Supreme 481 : Amendment in maintenance complaints under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where the amendment is sought to incorporate subsequent events after the institution of the case, is permissible. The court has the power to allow such amendment, especially when it arises due to subsequent events (e.g., escalation of prices) or to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The amendment does not require an enabling provision under the CrPC, and if it does not cause prejudice to the other side, it should be allowed in the interest of justice. This is supported by the principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice and must aid rather than defeat justice. The court in S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609 has recognized that while amendment in criminal complaints is not completely barred, it must be exercised sparingly and with caution under limited circumstances.Checking relevance for K. Mohanarangan VS NIL...

Checking relevance for JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI VS VEERAL JATIN JANI...

Checking relevance for Priyanka Chauhan VS Principal Judge Family Court...

Checking relevance for Sanshu Khurana VS Kimsi Singla...

Checking relevance for Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh, S/o T. Dharma Rao, Kendriya vs Immidisetty Anitha, D/o. Sri I. Subba Rao...

Checking relevance for Mukesh Joshi VS Manju Lata Joshi...

Mukesh Joshi VS Manju Lata Joshi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4438 : The court permitted the amendment of the petition for grant of divorce under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a mutual consent divorce matter, even though the amendment was sought after the institution of the proceedings. The court accepted the amendment to incorporate the mutual consent of the parties and to formalize the divorce petition, demonstrating that amendments are permissible in mutual consent divorce cases to reflect subsequent developments, including the parties'''' agreement to dissolve the marriage after the initial filing.Checking relevance for ABC - Husband VS XYZ – Wife...

Checking relevance for DHANJIT VS BEENA BADRA...

DHANJIT VS BEENA BADRA - 1990 0 Supreme(Del) 23 : An amendment to take into consideration subsequent events would necessarily be effective from a future date and not the date of the suit. This principle applies to matters involving mutual consent (MC) divorce, indicating that amendments seeking to incorporate events occurring after the institution of the proceeding are permissible but operate prospectively, not retroactively.

Amendment in MC/DV Matters for Incorporating Subsequent Events Post-Institution of Suit

• Permissibility of Amendments for Subsequent EventsCourts generally recognize that amendments to pleadings to include subsequent events are permissible, especially when such events have a material bearing on the case's outcome or relief sought. Courts are not precluded from considering subsequent facts that impact the entitlement of parties, provided the amendments are necessary for deciding the real controversy. This is supported by judicial precedents such as Ayyakannu and Others (AIR 2002 SC 3369) and Sampath Kumar v. Modi & Ors (AIR 2006 SC 1647), which emphasize that amendments should be allowed if they aid in the just adjudication of the case and relate to events during the pendency of the suit ["SRI K RAVI vs SRI K SRIRAM - Karnataka"], AIR 2002 SC 3369.

• Limitations on Amendments for Events Prior to SuitAmendments seeking to incorporate facts or events that occurred before the institution of the suit or prior to a preliminary decree are generally impermissible. Courts have consistently held that amendments cannot introduce facts from before the suit's inception or prior legal proceedings, as such facts are already part of the record or are barred from being introduced post-decree. Examples include cases where amendments sought to add facts prior to the suit or earlier decrees, which courts have rejected as legally impermissible ["SRI. LOKESH K vs SRI NAAYANAPPA - Karnataka"], ["SRI. LOKESH K vs SRI NARAYANAPPA - Karnataka"].

• Stage of Filing and Necessity of AmendmentAmendments filed during the pendency of the suit, especially to incorporate subsequent events, are often allowed if they are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. The courts consider whether the amendments are made in good faith, necessary for the real controversy, and do not cause injustice to the opposing party. Even if late, such amendments may be permitted if they serve the interests of justice, as seen in Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd (AIR 2022 SC 4256) and others ["SMT. SRIVALLI v/s SRI. VASU - Karnataka"], ["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"].

• Legal Principles and Judicial ApproachThe courts adopt a liberal approach towards amendments involving subsequent events, emphasizing that the primary concern is justice and the effective resolution of disputes. Amendments that relate to facts occurring during the pendency of the suit or appeal, and which are necessary for the case, are generally allowed, provided they do not prejudice the other side unduly. The courts also recognize that amendments are permissible to mold reliefs in light of new developments, as long as they do not alter the fundamental cause of action ["LAKESH RAO vs SAMRITI KUMARI - Himachal Pradesh"].

Analysis and ConclusionIn summary, amendments seeking to incorporate subsequent events after the institution of a suit or proceedings are generally permissible in civil law, provided these events are relevant, material, and occur during the pendency of the case. Courts tend to restrict amendments that attempt to introduce facts prior to the suit's inception or earlier decrees. The key considerations include necessity for justice, stage of proceedings, and potential prejudice. Therefore, in MC/DV matters, courts can allow amendments to include subsequent events if they are crucial for just adjudication, aligning with established judicial principles and precedents.

References:- SHAHID SHAIKH REPRESENTED THR. HIS POA MOBIN SHAIKH vs MEKITA MANGUESH NAIK - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6007- SRI K RAVI vs SRI K SRIRAM - Karnataka- AIR 2002 SC 3369- AIR 2006 SC 1647- AIR 2022 SC 4256- SRI. LOKESH K vs SRI NAAYANAPPA - Karnataka- SRI. LOKESH K vs SRI NARAYANAPPA - Karnataka- SMT. SRIVALLI v/s SRI. VASU - Karnataka- SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka- INHP00000055526