Allahabad High Court Upholds Amendment in Divorce Plea | Dismissal of a Divorce Petition Does Not Bar a Second Plea on Different Grounds under Section 13
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam dismissed a challenge to a Family Court order permitting amendment of a pending divorce petition. The Court affirmed that introducing additional allegations arising during the proceedings was permissible to resolve the core dispute and avoid multiple suits. It further clarified that dismissal of a divorce petition on one statutory ground does not preclude a subsequent petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on another ground between the same parties. The Court directed the Family Court at Hamirpur to conclude the divorce proceedings promptly in accordance with law.
The case originated when the plaintiff-respondent, Rajnarayan Tripathi, filed a divorce petition against his wife, the defendant-petitioner, Chitranshi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The defendant-petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegations. Subsequently, on July 27, 2022, the Family Court framed issues for adjudication, fixing August 1, 2022, for evidence.
On October 13, 2022, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to paragraphs 7, 11, and 14 of the plaint to include certain subsequent facts that had allegedly come to his knowledge after filing the petition. These included allegations concerning the petitioner’s conduct with a colleague, which the respondent claimed demonstrated immoral behavior amounting to cruelty. The defendant-petitioner opposed the amendment, contending that it was filed after framing of issues and hence barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, allowed the amendment application upon payment of Rs. 800, observing that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy and did not amount to a change in the cause of action. Aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227, asserting that after framing of issues, an amendment could not be allowed unless the Court found that the party could not, despite due diligence, raise the matter earlier. It was also argued that the proposed amendment sought to introduce new grounds for divorce, thereby changing the original cause of action.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the amendment application was filed immediately after settlement of issues and before commencement of evidence, thus not hit by the proviso. The amendment merely sought to incorporate subsequent facts without altering the original grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Court noted that the procedural rules of the CPC applied to matrimonial cases under Section 10 of the Family Court Act, 1984, read with Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court cited the proviso stating that “no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
Justice Nigam observed that “merely framing of issues cannot be said to be commencement of trial.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra (2018) 2 SCC 132 and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Court reiterated that the trial technically commences when the date is fixed for recording evidence and not merely when issues are framed.
Quoting from Mohinder Kumar Mehra, the Court noted that “filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness would amount to commencement of proceedings.” In the present case, since neither party had begun leading evidence, the proviso to Rule 17 was not applicable. Justice Nigam further stated that even if the amendment was sought after commencement of trial, it could still be allowed if the facts came to light later and were necessary for a just adjudication.
Referring to Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dayabhai Patel (2021) 20 SCC 210, the Court observed that “if some facts have come to the knowledge subsequently and subsequent to the commencement of trial, may be during the course of trial, and if it is found that it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, such an application for amendment can be allowed.”
The judgment recorded that the proposed amendments were elaborative in nature, describing instances of alleged cruelty such as the petitioner’s conduct with her colleague and an incident leading to a police report. The Court found that these additions were not introducing a fresh ground for divorce but were further details supporting the existing claim of cruelty.
The Bench further noted, “there is no prohibition for either of the parties to file a petition on one or more grounds specified in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.” Even if a new ground was introduced, the Court held that it would not be barred, as filing separate petitions for each ground would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Justice Nigam stated, “I am of the view that amendment sought by the plaintiff-respondent has been rightly allowed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, and mere framing of issues before filing of application of amendment will not be an impediment.”
“If some facts have come to the knowledge of the party to the suit subsequent to the commencement of trial, may be during the course of trial, and if it is found that it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, such an application for amendment can be allowed even after the trial has commenced.”
“By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has not tried to introduce a new ground or cause of action in his divorce petition rather, the proposed amendments are elaboration of facts which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff during pendency of the divorce petition.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that “no illegality has been committed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for amendment in pleadings. Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid proceeding in accordance with law, expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ram Bihari Mishra, Vikas Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Abu Sufiyan Azmi
Case Title: Chitranshi v. Rajnarayan Tripathi
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:169263
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 1261 of 2023
Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
