SATYAVATHI DEVI VELIDANDA Vs. SRINIVAS VELIDANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondent are heard, and the impugned order dated 17.1.2020 in M.C.No.4990/2015 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short, Family Court ) is perused.

(2.) The Family Court by the impugned order dated 17.1.2020 has rejected the petitioner s application [I.A. NO.9] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC). The petitioner by this application seeks to include a prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, HM Act ) and also include certain assertions in support of such prayer. The Family Court has rejected the application [I.A. NO.9] on the ground that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC cannot be typically allowed after commencement of trial unless it is shown to the Court s satisfaction that the party seeking amendment of the pleadings could not place such contentions on record earlier despite due diligence, and in the present case, the petitioner has not made out any ground to justify the amendment after commencement of the trial. The Family Court in the course of the impugned order has also referred to the direction of this Court on 19.7.2019 in an earlier round of litigation inter se parties before this Court in W.P.No.23348/2019.

(3.) The petitioner has filed this petition in M.C.No.4990/2015 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HM Act and she is receiving undisputedly an interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month for herself and her children. The petitioner, who was earlier represented by a learned Counsel, is now conducting the case on her own. Though the petitioner has not detailed any specific term or reason to justify the belated application for amendment of the pleadings to include relief under Section 25 of the HM Act, she has referred to the settled principle that Courts must lean in favour of deciding the rights of parties on merit instead of punishing them for any mistake in the conduct of the case.