SANHITA SAMIR KUMAR DAS Vs. AARON JOSEPH MATHIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Firdous Moosa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Aditya Miskita, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dtd. 10/2/2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai below Exhibit- 24 in Petition No. A-1064 of 2017 ("impugned Order"). By the impugned Order, the said Application bearing Exhibit-24 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking amendment of the Petition has been rejected.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Family Court has dismissed the Application on that ground that the questions asked in the Cross- examination have been made the basis for filing the Application, however, the questions asked regarding explanation and clarification sought from the Petitioner during her Cross-examination on the issue of bifurcation of the joint property and the questions asked in Cross- examination cannot give rise to any cause and it cannot provide a ground for seeking amendment of pleadings. The learned Judge has further observed that the essential requirement of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC has not been fulfilled. It has been further held that the Suit is for dissolution of marriage and by the proposed amendment the relief of declaration of rights and sale of the immovable property is sought to be added and therefore the proposed reliefs cannot be termed as sheer ancillary reliefs in the Divorce Petition and therefore it changes the nature of the Suit and substantially alters the same. It has been further held that the proposed amendment is not necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the Petition and it is not essential for the proper and effective adjudication of the Petition.