Ramachandran Nair, J. An application for amendment of pleadings was filed by the petitioner herein which was rejected by the Family Court as per Ext.P5 order. The same is under challenge.
2. We heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. O.P. No.914/2008 is filed by the respondents for a declaration that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanankutty Nair and to direct the petitioner to return the amount obtained as the pensionary benefits of the deceased. Ext.P2 is the copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner and Ext.P3 is the copy of the application filed to amend the pleadings.
4. The petitioner sought to amend the pleadings in the written statement for the purpose of clarifying three facts. One is regarding the date of marriage, the second thing is regarding her residential address which was inadvertently omitted in the objection and the third one is to incorporate OP(FC) No.490/2014 -2-
her name as Gouri Amma also.
5. Strong objections were raised by the respondents in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Gouri Amma is the name of the first respondent herein and the petitioner never claimed that she was known as Gouri Amma at any point of time.
6. The Family Court considered the matter and was of the view that the objection was filed as early as on 30.6.2010 and the application for amendment is highly belated. It is also stated that the petitioner never had a case that she was also known as Gouri Amma. With regard to the date of marriage and the residential address also, it is stated that she could have mentioned it in the objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order now passed by the Family Court will prevent the petitioner from even adducing evidence with regard to the date of marriage and the residential address.
7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the attempt of the petitioner is to show that she is the real wife of the deceased, by incorporating new facts.
8. After considering the matter in detail, we are of the view that with OP(FC) No.490/2014 -3-
regard to the alleged date of marriage, the order now passed will not prevent her from adducing evidence. But with regard to the other two aspects, we are not inclined to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order will stand confirmed.
With the above observations, the original petition is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/