The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.P. No.1470 of 2023 by the Hon'ble Judge, I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court pending disposal of the piesent Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. ALLU MIDHUN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER JTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY (]TVIL REVISION PE No.3644 of 2025 ORDER, Hetrrd Mr.Midhun Kumar Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The present is an order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-Xlv Additional Metropolit.an Sessions Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.938 of 2A24 in O.P.No.1470 of 2023, which is under challenge.

3. Vidr: the said impugned order, the learned Family Court has allowed the petition preferred by the respondent-wife under Order VI Rule 1.7 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking for amendment of the O.P. in the light of subsequent events that took place mearwhile.

4. The petitioner-husband seems to be aggrieved of the fact that the petitioner and respondent who are governed by Muslim law and on 03.08.2023, the petitioner pronounced first Talaq to respondent- wife and s,:cond Talaq was pronounced on 1l .09.2023 and third Talaq was pronounced on I I .10.2023. Meanwhile, however, the respondent-wife had filed the O.P for restitution of conjugal rights 2 F before the Family Court on25.09.2023 i.e. present OP.No.L47O of

2023. In the said OP, interim injunction was also sought and it was also granted on the same day i.e. on 25.09.2023 restraining the petitioner-husband from pronouncing third Talaq

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband further contended that the interim order dated 25.09.2023 was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and unknowing of the interim order passed by the trial Court dated'25.09.2023, third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023. It was after the third Talaq was pronounced on 11.10.2023, the respondent-wife thought of moving an amendment petition, in addition to the restitution of conjugal rights, she has also sought for declaration of three Talaqs dated 03.08.2023, 11.09.2023 and 11.10.2023 to be null and void and not binding betrveen the parties. After the amendment petition was filed, the petitioner-husband entered appearance and filed detailed counter affidavit objecting the amendment sought for, particularly, after the petitioner-husband has filed counter to the restitution petition and also had strongly contended that the very nature of the suit itself will be completely changed which by way of amendment would not be permissible- 3

6. However, a perusal of the record would go to show that the learned trial Court was of the view that when the restitution petition rvas filed, interim injunction was granted under .Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 of C.P.C. in 1.A.944 of 2023 not to pronounce the third Talaq and whether, knowingly or unknowingly Tataq har; been pronounced, veracity of the same will have to be decided. In the said circumstances, the respondent-wife would not be requirr:d to move any other petition, but, to amend the existing petition fitr getting the said action of third Talaq to be declared bad in law. i-he f,act which needs to be considered is that the Family Court matters have to be taken in a more pragmatic manner, rather than following strict technical procedures which otherwise flow from the provisions of C.P.C. As a consequence, by way of amendment in a given case the nature. of suit itself may get changed. In family matters, an endeavour also has to be made to curtail multiplicity of litigations. In the instant OP was already fited by the respondent-wife, interim injunction was also granted and it is thereafter that the third Talaq was pronounced on

11.10.2023 and which was, primafacie, contrary to the order dated 4

25.09.2023 passed by the Family Court, where order of restraint was in operation.

7. [n the said circumstances, if the trial Court allowed the amendment petition, the same cannot be found fault with nor it can be said to be bad in law. Nonetheless, since the earlier counter that the petitioner-husband had filed before the amendment was sought and allowed. As a consequence, the petitioner-husband would be entitled to file additional counter in the light of amendment petition being allowed and the additional counter would be to the extent of amendment brought in the O.P.

8. [t has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opportunity of filing additional counter was not granted and the matter has been fixed straightaway for evidence of the applicant. Such practice is not justified. In the opinion of this Court, when'once the amendment is allowed, the opposite party always has right to bring any consequential reply or counter to the portion which stands amended. In the instant case also, the petitioner would be entitled to file additional counter in the light and to the extent of amendment being allowed. 5

9. It has been inforimeo that the matter now is fixed before the Family (lourt on 08. r2.202s for the evidence of the applicant. This court, therefore, directs that let the petitioner meanwhile file addition.l counter on 08. 12.2025 and thereafter, the evidence of applicanr: be recorded. since there is sufficient time already left with the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that no funher time is required to be granted. If the petitioner fails to file any additional counter by the next date of hearing, the op shall be proceede,C and decided in accordance with law. 10. The civil Revision petition stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. co,sequently, misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// L.VIJAYA LAXMI T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER .! To,

1. The I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional at Hyderatlad, Hyderabad District. Sessions Court

2. One CC tc SRl. ALLU MTDHUN KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD tSsp;ss , PK/PSL (< I HIGH COURT DATED i1411112025 { o8-DE\z CRP.No.3644 of 2025 3 o O t s t ? rrR 7fl?f, * l' RTLY ALLOWED 5ro(d ,# fl(4