Proviso To Order VI Rule 17 CPC Cannot Be Elevated Into An Inflexible Rule Defeating Section 10(3) Of Family Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The Court dismissed a wife’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and upheld an order allowing the husband to amend his pleadings after his evidence was tendered and cross-examination had begun. It held that proceedings under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 concern changing circumstances, so the Family Court may receive material that arose both before and after the proceedings began. It added a caution that amendments not bona fide, or calculated to delay, may be declined.

A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “…The stage of the proceedings has to be balanced against the nature of the proceedings, the character of the relief sought, the relevance of the proposed material and the statutory power of the learned Family Court to adopt an appropriate procedure for arriving at the truth. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC may constitute an important procedural consideration, but it cannot be permitted to be elevated into an inflexible rule which renders Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act incapable of meaningful application”.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Prosenjeet Banerjee appeared for the respondent.

The parties married in 1999 and have two children, while their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent through orders of November 29, 2011 and May 11, 2012, with a settlement on the children’s expenses, custody and visitation. In July 2013, the husband sought modification under Sections 25 and 26 of the HMA. Issues were framed on March 27, 2014, his evidence was tendered on November 1, 2018 and cross-examination began on December 4, 2018.

In December 2019, he sought to amend his pleadings to add his changed finances, his association with Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd., his mother’s health, the wife’s finances and lifestyle, and the change of the children’s surname from “Taneja” to “Nath” and their shift to the United Kingdom. The Family Court allowed it on October 19, 2020 as necessary for just decision. The wife argued no due diligence was shown and the amendment changed the nature of the case.

The Court noted that Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory and limited, citing Shalini Shyam Shetty and Garment Craft. It relied on Sections 10 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, Kusum Sharma, and High Court rulings from Punjab and Haryana and Kerala. It held that some averments were within the husband’s earlier knowledge, but that this did not disentitle him, as each amendment need not be examined in isolation. The wife retains the right to contest relevance, truth and evidentiary value, and the order disclosed no prejudice, perversity or denial of fairness.

Cause Title: S @ SY v. ST (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9444)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra with Advocates Pranjal Pandey, Anuj Singh, Prasann Prashar, Janvi Desai and Prachi Sharma.

Respondent: Senior Advocate Prosenjeet Banerjee with Advocates Shreya Singhal, Anshika Sharma, Mhasilenuo Keditsu and Kushagra for the respondent, who was also present in person.

Click here to read/download the Judgment