Dismissed¶70

Sri P Suresh v. Smt Deepa

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025WP/4020/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Art. 227, GM-FC) dismisses husband's challenge to Family Court Bengaluru rejection of Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of cause of action in divorce petition M.C.No.4823/2017 (cruelty and desertion); due diligence requirement under Order VI Rule 17; amendment sought belatedly during trial to get over respondent's defence; amendment would cause prejudice not compensable in money; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswami and sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, factors applied against applicant; earlier M.C.No.1016/2006 dismissed 30.06.2011, MFA.No.8667/2011 withdrawn; acquittal in S.C.No.884/2010 dated 27.04.2012.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed. ¶70

Sri P Suresh Vs Smt Deepa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed.

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.11.2024 of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.XI (the application for amendment) in M.C.No.4823/2017 should be set aside and the amendment allowed. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The order passed by the Family Court rejecting I.A.No.XI is a well-considered one; no interference is called for, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

An applicant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must state and prove that in spite of due diligence the facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court.

¶65

Key takeaways

The cause of action mentioned in the petition goes to the root of the matter and decides the case; here the amendment was sought during the course of the trial, after a particular defence was raised by the respondents, in order to get over that defence.ratio¶65
Applying the Revajeetu Builders factor that an amendment should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money, this Court found that allowing the amendment would definitely cause prejudice to the other side; the precedent therefore does not rescue the petitioner.ratio¶65
By way of an amendment, a defence that is available to the defendant cannot be taken away by allowing an application for amendment of pleadings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (GM-FC) by the husband challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.4823/2017 rejecting I.A.No.XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the cause of action in his divorce petition (grounds: cruelty and desertion). The High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) dismissed the petition, holding: an applicant under Order VI Rule 17 must state and prove that in spite of due diligence the facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court, and an available defence cannot be taken away by amendment; the cause of action goes to the root of the matter and decides the case; the amendment was sought belatedly during trial, after a defence was raised by the respondent, to get over it, and allowing it would cause prejudice which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; the factors in Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswami and sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84, therefore do not come to the rescue of the petitioner; the Family Court's order is well considered and calls for no interference.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 4020 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI P. SURESH S/O K.PITCHAI MUTHU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. NO.48, GROUND FLOOR DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU-560 036

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT.DEEPA W/O P.SURESH AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.56, LAXMISAGAR LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU -560 048

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 23.11.2024 OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT IN I.A.NO.11 PASSED IN M.C.NO.4823/2017 ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER ANNEXURE-B.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XI in M.C.No.4823/2017 dated 23.11.2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected I.A.No.XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

¶24

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶25

The husband had filed M.C.No.4823/2017 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. In the petition that is filed before the Family Court, it is stated that the cause of action arose on 26.01.2001 when the marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife got solemnized and thereafter, again during the year 2007 when the wife left the husband in October, 2010. The M.C. is filed in

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the year 2017. During the Course of trial, the present I.A. came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Now, by way of this amendment, the husband wants to amend the cause of action as when the respondent left the petitioner in October 2005 and subsequently on 27.04.2012 when the petitioner was acquitted from the case in S.C.No.884/2010 filed by the respondent and on subsequent dates. In the affidavit, it is stated that initially, the husband had filed a divorce petition against the wife which came to be numbered as M.C.No.1016/2006 on the file of VI Additional Family Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru and the wife appeared and filed her statement of objection. After conclusion of trial, the Court by judgment dated 30.06.2011 had dismissed the petition filed by the husband. The husband had challenged the judgment dated 30.06.2011 before this Court by filing MFA.No.8667/2011. During the pendency of the case, the wife had filed criminal cases against the husband and the family members. After investigation, the Police had filed the charge sheet and it is numbered as S.C.No.884/2010. By order dated 27.04.2012, the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City acquitted the husband. It is also stated that while dismissing the first petition filed by the husband

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

against the wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion in M.C.No.1016/2006, the VI Additional Family Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru had made certain observations in paragraph Nos.21, 22 and 23 in the said case. The Court had given a finding that the grounds do not amount to cruelty. It is stated that the amendment sought, do not make material changes in the pleadings as well as the prayer made in the suit. The amendments which are sought for are only to correct the typographical errors and if the amendments sought for is allowed, it will not cause any kind of hardship to the respondent.

¶32

The Family Court by way of order impugned had rejected I.A.No.XI. While rejecting the said application, the Family Court had observed that the discretionary power to allow the amendment has to be exercised judiciously with great care. In this case, the husband failed to take up the incident of acquittal in S.C.No.884/2010 as cause of action to this petition for divorce and the session case was also pending during the pendency and disposal of the previous petition filed by the husband. It is not the case of the husband that the said session

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

case ended in acquittal for the reason of false complaint filed by the wife. If at all there is an observation of the competent court of law that the wife filed a false complaint against the husband on which basis S.C.No.884/2010 was filed. The husband certainly would have filed a case against the wife for malicious prosecution. The Family Court had also observed that the husband came up with this unnecessary application for amendment at the belated stage without assigning valid reasons for not taking up this amendment well in advance before commencement of trial, to wriggle out himself from disproving the question of maintainability of the petition, the present application is filed by the husband. The Family Court held that the husband has not made out any grounds to allow the application filed at a belated stage and accordingly, rejected the application.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the trial Court had failed to consider the application that is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in its proper perspective. It is submitted that if this application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/wife.

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Further, the petitioner has narrated all the facts in his petition stating that the cause of action arose in the year 2007 is just a typographical mistake. Unless and until this amendment is allowed, it would cause lot of hardship to the husband. The Family Court had failed to consider all these aspects. It is submitted that if the amendment is not allowed, it would have an impact on the main M.C. itself. Learned counsel submits that the Court ought to have allowed the application. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswami and sons and others¹ . She has relied on paragraph No.63 of the judgment which reads thus:

¶41

"Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments

¶42

63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

¶43

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

¶44

(2) whether the application for amendment is bonafide or mala fide;

¶45

1 (2009) 10 SCC 84

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

¶50

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

¶51

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

¶52

(e) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

¶53

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

¶54

64. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments."

¶55

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

¶56

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the amendment sought is imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the case, when the application for amendment

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

is bonafide, when no prejudice would be caused to the wife, the Family Court ought to have allowed the application. It is submitted that the order impugned is contrary to law and facts and the same needs to be set aside.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The facts of the case are that the husband in the year 2006 had already filed M.C.No.1016/2006 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said M.C. came to be dismissed. Against that, MFA.No.8667/2011 was filed. Later, the MFA was withdrawn and after that, the present M.C.No.4823/2017 is filed. In that, it is stated that the cause of action arose in the year 2007.

¶61

When the trial has commenced, at a belated stage this application came to be filed stating that during the course of trial, the petitioner has come to know about this and unless and until this amendment is allowed, it would cause lot of prejudice to the husband. The Family Court had considered this application and on the ground that no valid reasons are stated why the application was not filed at an earlier stage, had dismissed the application.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

When an application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the applicant should state and prove that in spite of due diligence those facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court and at the same time, by way of an amendment, defence that is available to the defendant cannot be taken away by allowing an application for amendment of pleadings. The cause of action that is mentioned in the petition goes to the root of the matter and that decides the case. During the course of the trial, when a particular defence was raised by the respondents, then to get over that, the present application is filed seeking amendment. The judgment that is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not at all come to the rescue of the petitioner. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the amendment should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. If this amendment is allowed, it would definitely cause prejudice to the order side and in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Family Court is a well considered one and no interference is called for. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:24115 WP No. 4020 of 2025

¶67