1 - Rahul Kumar Gupta S/o Satish Chandra Gupta Aged About 32 Years Occupation v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 350 of 2025 1 - Rahul Kumar Gupta S/o Satish Chandra Gupta Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Service, Nayab Tahsildar, Permanent R/o Jhalmala, Purani Basti, Police Station And Tahsil - Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) Presently Posted As Nayab Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District- Baster (C.G.) versus 1 - Smt. Renu Gupta W/o Rahul Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years D/o Pallu Ram Gupta, Occupation - House Wife, R/o Sundar Nagar, Near Bijli Office, Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.143-A/2023 dated 20.03.2025 whereby, an application moved by the petitioner/husband under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the parties were married on -2- 25.11.2022. On account of cruelty extended by the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife left the house. The respondent moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The case was filed on 05.06.2023. The petitioner filed a reply to the petition on 22.03.2024. He denied the averments made in the petition and specifically pleaded that he was threatened by the respondent regarding false implication in a criminal case. The petitioner also pleaded that after marriage, they visited Shirdi and offered prayer. They also visited various places like Bilaspur, Raipur, and Ratanpur Mahamaya temple. Learned Family Court framed issues. The plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 04.10.2024 and the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner/husband to lead evidence on 07.02.2025. 3. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC on 20.03.2025 wherein for the first time, a plea was taken that the respondent is a suffering from psychological disorder. It is also pleaded that the respondent/wife used to call 20-25 times and her behaviour was not normal. 4. Learned Trial Court considered that after the completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the application for amendment has been moved at a belated stage. It is further held that the wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court has to examine whether the husband had sufficient reasons for staying 3 separately or not and consequently, the application was rejected with a cost of Rs.1000/-. 5. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous. He would further submit that the learned Family Court ought to have allowed the application. He would also submit that the application for amendment can be allowed before the conclusion of the trial. It is also contended that by way of amendment, the petitioner has elaborated the facts already stated in the written statement. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, reported in 2022 (16) SCC 1. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents. 7. In the matter of Sanjeev Builders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 71.3, 71.3.1 and 71.3.2 held as under:- “71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1 If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, -4- (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).” 8. A perusal of the petition filed by the respondent would show that a suit was filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights. The wife has made various allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply and denied the allegations. 9. A bare reading of the written statement would make it clear that there is no whisper with regard to the mental status of the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife closed her evidence on 04.10.2024. The case was fixed for the defendant’s evidence and on 07.02.2025, the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. The petitioner moved an application for amendment on 20.03.2025 taking the only plea that the respondent is physiologically ill and it is evident from her conduct. 10.Learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that the same had been moved at a belated stage, particularly after the plaintiff’s evidence. 11.In the matter of Sanjeev Builders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all amendments are to be allowed which are 5 necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 12.In the present case, the petitioner has made a specific allegation with regard to the mental status of the respondent/wife which was never taken in the written statement and thus, it would cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 13.The amendment proposed by the petitioner is not required for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties as the respondent/wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the learned Family Court has to adjudicate as to whether there are sufficient reasons available to the petitioner to reside separately. 14.The amendment proposed by the petitioner is baseless. 15.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeev Builders (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 16.Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge