Allowed

Suraj Kumar Mishra v. Megha Sadanand Jha

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2024WP227/802/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Family Court's order dismissing an application for amendment to a divorce petition. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary for complete justice and caused no prejudice to the respondent, allowing it subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Amendment application set aside and allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- within 21 days.

Suraj Kumar Mishra Vs Megha Sadanand Jha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:35725

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(227) No.802 of 2024

¶6

Suraj Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Rudra Nath Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o GSLV Mark 3, Project Complex, BSSC, Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Megha Sadanand Jha Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Aadarsh Vidyalaya At Tatibandh, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶12

12.09.2024

¶13

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.12 15:20:28 +0530

¶14

This Petition has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the 2^nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No.496/23 whereby, the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC prior to filing of the written statement, has been dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/husband has filed a

¶16

divorce Petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

dissolution of marriage and the subject application was filed to elaborate the relations, different instances as also the conduct of the parties. Though written statement of the Respondent/wife has not been filed till so far, but the trial Coourt has dismissed the said application by way of the order impugned. Hence this Petition.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the proposed amendment application. He placed reliance on Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 1128, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. KK Modi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and Jaspreet Kaur vs. Lovepreet Singh Dhiman reported in 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 2846 and prays to allow the Petition while setting aside the order impugned.

¶20

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the order impugned as also the documents annexed with the Petition carefully.

¶21

It is well settled that the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. The cardinal test is that whether the proposed amendment is necessary for full and complete justice to the parties before the Court or not.

¶22

Considering the nature of the amendment and the parameters laid down in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (supra), further considering that the case is at initial stage and no prejudice would be casued to the other side, this Court opines that in such situation, the learned Court below

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

ought to have allowed the amendment to be incorporated in the divorce Petition while considering the said application.

¶25

Accordingly, the said amendment application is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to the Respondent/wife through her Counsel within a period of 21 days of the receipt of copy of this order and the subject amendment be also carried out within the said period. Upon depositing the aforesaid cost to the Respondent/wife, the learned matrimonial Court shall, while allowing the Petitioner to carry out the said amendment, also afford a fair opportunity the Respondent/wife for consequential amendment, if any.

¶26

Witht the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant Petition stands disposed o f.

¶27

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶28

Priya

Suraj Kumar Mishra v. Megha Sadanand Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Mishra v. Megha Sadanand Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs Lokeshwar Singh Thakur

Umashankar Pandey And Anr. Vs The Municipal Corporation Bhilai

Gopal Vs Baishakhu And Ors.

Smt. Radha Bai Vs Vijay Kumar Sinha

Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, Vs Atmaram Khatwani