IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.61907/2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MR. GIRISH S/O SHIVAMURTHY PATIL AGED: 42 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.256, PLOT NO.75 6TH CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR BELGAUM – 590 075 (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADV. FOR SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADV.) AND:
MRS. BRUNDA W/O GIRISH PATIL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O C/O SHIVANANJAPPA RAJENDRA NAGAR DOOR No.1058, KESARE 3RD STAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MYSORE – 07 (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ... PETITIONER .. RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.5 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC IN M.C.NO.154/2013 DATED 24.09.2016 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.09.2016 passed in I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in M.C.No.154/2013.
2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent.
Due to certain differences in their marital life, a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been filed. In the pending proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking to amend the petition. The Court below on taking note of the prayer made therein has rejected the amendment. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the amendment as sought does not change the nature of the petition and what has been sought to be incorporated is with regard to the instances relating to cruelty and therefore the Court below ought to have allowed the said amendment.
4. In the light of what is contended, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below would indicate that the Court below has kept in view the nature of the amendment sought and also the provision relating to the permissibility or otherwise of the amendment. In that regard, it has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has not shown diligence to seek for amendment at this point since the aspects which are sought to be now pleaded if true were within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the petition. That apart, what is also to be noticed herein is that the amendment sought is only to indicate certain instances through which the petitioner seeks to support the case of the cruelty as sought in the petition. In that regard, a perusal of the petition as filed would indicate that the petitioner no doubt has referred to certain instances which according to him amounts to cruelty and therefore has sought for dissolution of the marriage.
5. When such pleading has been put forth and if any specific instances are to be referred, certainly in the course of the evidence, such instances could be mentioned. Hence, at every stage when certain instances are to be indicated, the petitioner cannot be allowed to file application to amend the petition. Therefore in that circumstance, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error so as to call for interference.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms