Allowed

Smt P Tamil Selvi v. Sri G Paranjyothy

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026WP/11077/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought to amend her counter in a dissolution-of-marriage case; the trial Court refused. The High Court held counsel's failure to plead fully should not deprive a party, no new pleas or prejudice arose, quashed the refusal, and allowed the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.03.2021 on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.68/2016 set aside; the interlocutory application for amendment of counter allowed.

Smt P Tamil Selvi Vs Sri G Paranjyothy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.11077 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. P. TAMIL SELVI

¶11

W/O. G. PARANJYOTHY AGED 50 YEARS

¶12

R/AT R.V.PURAM VILLAGE

¶13

VIJAYAPURAM MANDAL

¶14

NAGARI TALUK-517 590

¶15

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CHITTOOR DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI M. B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI G. PARANJYOTHY S/O. LATE M. GOVINDAN

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

HC-KAR

AGED 56 YEARS

B.S.F. EX SERVICEMAN

R/AT SEETHASHETTY COMPOUND

OORGAUMPET

K.G.F.-563 121

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC IN M.C.NO.68/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, K.G.F., VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for

¶40

the petitioner as well as Sri.S.Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶41

Seeking the Court to quash the order that is passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, KGF on IA No.III in M.C.No.68/2016 dated 12.03.2021, the present writ petition is filed. By the submission that is made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of relevant material that is brought on record, it is clear that the petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. Respondent filed a case i.e., M.C.No.68/2016 seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage. Respondent therein who is the petitioner herein filed her counter. Subsequently, she filed an interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking the Court to permit her to amend the counter as sought for. The Court through the impugned order dismissed the said interlocutory application i.e.,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

I.A.No.III and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶47

with untenable grounds respondent filed a case seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage. Petitioner filed her counter. She gave all the required instructions to her counsel for the counter to be prepared. But her counsel

¶48

failed to mention all the particulars furnished by her. Subsequently, she came to know that the counter filed by her lacks material particulars. Immediately she moved an application seeking the Court to permit her to amend the

¶49

counter, but the Court disallowed her request. Learned counsel states that the case is still at the stage of receiving evidence and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent even. By submitting that parties to the proceedings should be permitted to put forth all their contentions and that proposed amendment will not cause any hardship to the opponent, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision that is rendered by the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between State of Bihar and others vs. Modern Tent House and Another reported in (2017) 8 SCC 567 .

¶54

Per contra learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner tried to introduce as many as 18 paragraphs through the amendment sought for. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner and her children filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the respondent herein seeking maintenance and in the said case all the pleas which she now proposed to take were taken and therefore, nothing prevented the petitioner to

¶55

raise all her contentions as sought for through the proposed amendment while she filed her counter itself. Learned counsel further states that proposed amendment is nothing but adding explanation and additional particulars to the pleas already taken and thus the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

A perusal of the proposed amendment goes to

¶60

show that the petitioner has not taken any new pleas. As

¶61

per her version though she gave the instructions elaborately to her counsel to prepare the counter and file, the counsel did not choose to incorporate all the contents in the counter. The solemn duty of the Court is to dispose of the matter on merits by taking into consideration each and every aspect of the case and the pleadings of the parties. Failure on the part of the counsel to prepare appropriate pleadings should not deprive the party from right to vindicate his/her grievance and to project required particulars. Admittedly, even as per the version of respondent the pleas taken through the proposed amendment were already taken by the petitioner in the maintenance case filed by her. Therefore, respondent will be put to no surprise even on allowing the proposed amendment. Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have allowed the interlocutory application for amendment of pleadings. Therefore, the following:

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:4949 WP No. 11077 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶67

(ii) The order rendered by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, KGF on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.68/2016 dated 12.03.2021 is set aside. Consequently, the said interlocutory application is allowed.

¶68

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶69

NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Smt P Tamil Selvi v. Sri G Paranjyothy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P Tamil Selvi v. Sri G Paranjyothy

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

Sri.Ilyaz Pasha @ Elyas Pasha Vs Ayaan Pasha

Smt Pooja Vs Sri Akshay K M P

The Branch Manager Vs Sri Ananda Kumar K

Malvika Radhakrishnan Vs M P Bopaiah

Sri N Murali Vs Smt Divya R

Sri Sandeep Shenoy Bhamy Vs Mrs. Sheetal Hegde