Moving Amendment Application At Final Stage Of Proceedings Is Against The Spirit Of Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a first appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1986 against the order passed by the Family Court, Lucknow in an Original Case filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereby the Family Court allowed the amendment application filed by the respondent.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh said, “...the respondent has recently filed an application for amendment just to delay the proceedings and to harass his deserted wife, who is running from pillar to post for the last 10 years. The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is to be seen in the perspective of the given facts that unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court. In the present case, for the last 10 years the respondent was silent over the matter and when the proceedings were at final stage, he moved the amendment application, which is against the spirit of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C”, the Bench said.

Advocate Rishi Raj represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The marriage of the appellant was performed with the respondent according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals in 2011 at Lucknow. The appellant went to the house of her husband and performed her marital obligations, but they demanded a car and cash as dowry. Under the pressure of the demand of dowry and other compelling circumstances, the appellant left the house of the respondent and lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family members under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. A charge sheet was filed, and the court concerned took cognizance of the matter.

Since both parties were living separately for more than one year, therefore, the appellant filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said suit, the respondent filed various types of applications, including applications for summoning the witnesses, but the same were rejected by the Trial Court. The appellant filed a petition under Article 227 for a direction to decide her suit within the stipulated period.

A direction was passed to decide the suit of the appellant within four months. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the pleadings as well as in the prayer clause for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was allowed by the Family Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the respondent after 10 years of the institution of the suit by the appellant. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court has held that an application at the belated stage may be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, but only with a plausible explanation. However, in the present case, the respondent was unable to give any plausible explanation as to how he kept silent over the matter for the last 10 years, and now, when the date for the final hearing had been fixed, he moved an application for amendment and for setting up his counterclaim.

“After going through the order dated 21.9.2024 passed by this Court in the petition filed by the appellant bearing nom 4516 of 2024, it is quite surprising that amendment application has been allowed by the Family Court on 20.2.2025 especially when this Court had already given a direction to the Family Court to decide the case within four months and even no modification application was moved in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside”, it further added.

The Bench took note of the recording of the Family Court that the respondent was afforded ample opportunity to lead evidence, and thereafter opportunity for leading evidence was closed, and the matter was fixed for hearing. However, the respondent, in order to delay the proceedings, moved the amendment application and the Family Court, without application of a proper judicial mind, allowed the said application.

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Family Court, the Bench directed the Family Court to proceed with the case on day-to-day basis and decide the same within two months without granting any unnecessary adjournments, including the ground of strike of lawyers.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:30333-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Rishi Raj, Vaani Srivastava, Varun Singh

Click here to read/download Order