Smt. Sheenu Mammen Vs Mammen Varghese — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. Sheenu Mammen Vs Mammen Varghese — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: the Family Court order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure 'E') dismissing I.A.No.5 is set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to amend her petition in M.C.No.2631/2021 to include paragraphs 17(a) and 17(b).

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment application (I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) to add paragraphs 17(a) and 17(b) — instances of cruelty occurring after the filing of M.C.No.2631/2021 — could lawfully be refused on the ground that trial had already commenced.

Court's answer

The petitioner cannot be denied permission to amend merely because she did not mention the dates of the incidents in proposed paragraphs 17(a) and 17(b); the incidents occurred recently and the dates will be reflected in the WhatsApp chat extracts and recorded voice messages she filed to substantiate them.

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial was not yet in progress — the case was only at the chief examination affidavit stage — and the alleged incidents were recent, a reasonable opportunity must be granted to the petitioner to establish her grounds for divorce.

Key takeaways

This Court found that the trial court's order was not based on a proper appreciation of facts and was therefore to be set aside.ratio¶37
The amendment sought by the petitioner to include paragraphs 17(a) and 17(b) in the plaint is allowed.ratio¶41-42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions — Amendment of pleadings — Order VI Rule 17 CPC — Divorce proceedings. Held, denying a wife leave to amend her divorce petition (M.C.No.2631/2021, Family Court, Bengaluru) to add recent instances of cruelty (paras 17(a) and 17(b)) merely because the dates of the incidents were not specified in the proposed paragraphs is improper; the incidents were recent, their dates would be reflected in the WhatsApp chat extracts and voice recordings she intended to rely on, and the case had progressed only to the chief-examination affidavit stage, so trial was not in progress. The husband's alleged forcible entry into her Marathahalli residence and abuse during discussions of the daughter's wedding arrangements were events postdating the 2021 filing. A reasonable opportunity must be granted to a spouse pleading divorce to establish the claimed grounds. Accordingly, the Family Court order dated 07.11.2024 dismissing I.A.No.5 was set aside, the amendment was allowed, and the writ petition (Art. 227) was allowed. (P Sree Sudha J.; decision dated 13.07.2026.)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 21573 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHEENU MAMMEN W/O MAMMEN VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A 194, KRIPA NIVAS, 2^ND CORSS, 7^TH MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL 3^RD STAGE BANGALORE-560 075.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHIMA S K., ADVOCATE) AND:

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

MAMMEN VARGHESE S/O P.G. VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A 194, KRIPA NIVAS 2^ND CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 075.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GEETHA G MENON., ADVOCATE)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 07.11.24 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE ON IA NO. 5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SEC 151 PF CPC IN MC NO. 2631/21 AND ETC.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside

the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 at Annexure ‘E’ in M.C.No.2631/2021 pending on the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in I.A.No.5, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

2. Perused t he said amendment application filed by the petitioner to include paragraph 17(a) and 17(b), but the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order she preferred this appeal. It is submitted that she filed M.C.No.2631/2021 against respondent/husband for divorce and permanent alimony and also filed Annexure ‘A’ and the said application is filed to include paragraph 17(a) and 17(b).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he respondent continuously harassed, defamed her

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

and forced her to move out of the matrimony home and he also forcibly entered into her residence in Marathahalli abused and insulted her verbally in front of her domestic help. It is further stated that when they were discussing about her daughter's wedding arrangements, he abused her and daughter and threatened her to withdraw the divorce proceedings. Otherwise, he stated that he will defame the petitioner and his daughter. She wants to bring those facts before the court, as such, she filed an IA under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the petition by adding new events of cruelty. But, the family Court dismissed the same erroneously. Family Court observed that as trial is commenced and it is posted for PW1 further evidence, now the amendment application cannot be entertained.

The petitioner herein is not trying to introduce any new facts by way of amendment or change in the nature of petition. She wanted to add the instances of cruelty, by way of an amendment. She relied upon a

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

citation as per the decision in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Others Vs K.K. Modi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and stated that if the evidence adduced without necessary pleadings, it will tend to have adverse inference causing prejudice to her. As such, amendment is necessary. The case is only posted for further evidence and marking of documents. She further stated that the case is at the stage of her examination in chief and it is posted for further evidence and marking of documents.

Thus, requested to set aside the order dated 07.11.2024.

5. P erused paragraph Nos.17(a) and 17(b) of the amendment application. Admittedly, she herself has filed MC.No.2631/2021 for divorce, in which she filed her chief examination affidavit. It is coming up for marking of documents or further evidence. But the trial court held that already trial has commenced and the facts stated by her are subsequent events and she is at liberty to take legal action against him for the said acts and she has not assigned any reason for not including them in the petition.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

Admittedly, she filed her divorce application in the year 2021, when the case came up for evidence her husband forcibly entered into her house at Marathahalli and abused her and her daughter, when they were discussing about her daughter's wedding arrangements. She stated that she filed extracts of the watsapp chats and recorded voice messages to substantiate the said version and the date of said incidents will be reflected in the said documents. Merely because she has not mentioned the date of instance in 17(a) and 17(b), in the proposed amendment paragraphs, on that ground, she cannot be denied permission for amendment. Admittedly these incidents have happened recently. As the trial is not yet in progress and only at the stage of chief examination affidavit, she came up with this application. As she filed for divorce reasonable opportunity is to be granted for her to establish her grounds for divorce. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is not on the proper appreciation of facts and is to be set aside.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35327 WP No. 21573 of 2025

HC-KAR

The amendment sought for by the petitioner for

including 17(a) and 17(b) in the plaint is allowed.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed .

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

AKV CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3