GOVINDARAJAN Vs. VIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the respondent in MC No.179/2018 pending on the files of the Family Court, Palakkad. The MC is filed by the petitioner's wife and minor child, arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 herein. The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P4 order of the Family Court, allowing an application for amendment filed by the respondents.

(2.) Adv.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the absence of any provision for amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Court committed gross illegality in passing Ext.P4 order. Even if the Family Court is taken to be having the power to permit amendment of pleadings, that can only be of formal in nature. In the case at hand the attempt of the respondents is to incorporate new facts and allegations, in order to get over the valid contentions in the objection filed by the petitioner herein.

(3.) Adv.Sruthy N.Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the maintenance case, as originally filed, did not contain the requisite details. Hence, the amendment application was filed for supplementing the pleadings already on record. It is contended that, even in the absence of any specific provision, the Family Court is empowered to permit amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice. In support of the contention reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Madhavi v. Thupran (1987 (1) KLT 488), of the Madras High Court in Ramarajan v. Krishnan () & Nallan v. Palaniammal (1998 SCC OnLine Mad 1558) and of the Orissa High Court in Sabita Sahoo v. Khirod Kumar Sahoo (1990 SCC OnLine Ori.433).