Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Family Court, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), whereby the Family Court has allowed the amendment application filed by the husband, a division bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh*, JJ. while referring to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) emphasised that an amendment can only be allowed if the court is satisfied that, despite exercising due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.
In the present case, the Court found that the husband was fully aware of the facts at the time of the institution of the divorce suit. Therefore, filing an amendment application after a lapse of ten years, and at the stage when the proceedings had reached the final hearing, was held to be impermissible. The Court concluded that such a delayed amendment could not be sustained and was clearly intended to delay the proceedings.
Background
The parties were married in 2011 as per Hindu rites in Lucknow. After the marriage, the wife had joined the husband at his residence and had fulfilled her marital duties. However, she had been subjected to demands for dowry in the form of a car and cash. Due to this pressure and other adverse circumstances, she left the husband’s house on 31-12-2012.
An FIR had been lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members, registered as a case under Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Following investigation, a charge sheet had been filed, and the court had taken cognizance on 23-12-2013.
Since the parties had been living separately for over a year, the wife had filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband had allegedly adopted delaying tactics by filing multiple applications, including requests to summon various witnesses, which had been rejected by the Family Court on multiple occasions.
Aggrieved by these delays, the wife had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the High Court had directed the Family Court to decide the divorce suit within four months. Despite this direction, the husband had filed another application to summon a witness, which had also been rejected.
Subsequently, in 2024, the husband had filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking changes in the pleadings and in the prayer clause to include a plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife had filed objections, but the Family Court had allowed the amendment. This order was under challenge in the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC had been filed by the husband after a delay of ten years from the institution of the suit by the wife.
It was noted that this Court, while disposing of the wife’s petition, had directed the Family Court to decide the case within four months. This direction was issued after observing from the order sheet that the husband had been attempting to delay the proceedings by filing multiple applications, all of which were rejected by the Family Court.
Despite this clear direction, the Family Court entertained and allowed the husband’s amendment application. The Court found it significant that the relief sought through the amendment was within the husband’s knowledge since the inception of the suit. However, the husband had chosen to file the amendment only at the final stage of the proceedings. The Court held that this conduct indicated a clear intention to delay the proceedings and alter the nature of the case.
Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the husband’s successive applications for summoning witnesses had already been rejected multiple times, reinforcing the pattern of delaying tactics. The husband’s recent amendment application was viewed as a further attempt to harass the wife, who had been pursuing the matter for the past ten years.
Referring to the legal standard under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court reiterated that amendments should only be permitted where the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. In this case, the husband remained silent for a decade and brought the amendment only at the final stage of the proceedings, which, according to the Court, defeated the purpose and spirit of the provision.
Upon a plain reading of Rule 6A of Order VIII CPC, the Court held that a counterclaim could be filed by a defendant against the plaintiff in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant either before or after the filing of the suit, but only before the defendant had delivered his defence or before the time for delivering the defence had expired. In the present case, since the Family Court had already passed an order closing the evidence on 04-12-2024, the amendment application filed by the husband on 19-12-2024 was held to be unsustainable.
The Court found it surprising that the amendment was entertained, particularly in the absence of any application seeking modification of the earlier High Court order.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the impugned order dated 20-02-2025 allowing the amendment application was not sustainable in law and was therefore liable to be set aside.
The Court concluded that the order dated 04-12-2024 clearly indicated that the Family Court had recorded a finding that the husband had been afforded ample opportunity to lead evidence. Following this, the opportunity to lead evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 23-12-2024. However, in order to delay the proceedings, the respondent moved the amendment application on 19-12-2024. The Court held that the Family Court had allowed the said application without applying proper judicial mind.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 20-02-2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, was set aside.
The Court also took note of the order dated 05-03-2025 passed by the Single Judge, which had extended the time for decision of the case by eight months from the date of production of the certified copy. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that it was a decade-old matter, the Court directed the Family Court to proceed with the case on a day-to-day basis and decide it within two months from the date of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournments, including on the ground of lawyers’ strike.
[Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3124, decided on 22-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Brij Raj Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant:- Rishi Raj,Vaani Srivastava,Varun Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
