Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Renu Gupta on 21 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17814
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 350 of 2025
1 - Rahul Kumar Gupta S/o Satish Chandra Gupta Aged About 32 Years
Occupation- Service, Nayab Tahsildar, Permanent R/o Jhalmala, Purani
Basti, Police Station And Tahsil - Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) Presently
Posted As Nayab Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District- Baster (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Renu Gupta W/o Rahul Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years D/o
Pallu Ram Gupta, Occupation - House Wife, R/o Sundar Nagar, Near
Bijli Office, Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
21.04.2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Judge,
Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Civil Suit
No.143-A/2023 dated 20.03.2025 whereby, an application moved
by the petitioner/husband under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been
rejected.
2. The facts of the present case are that the parties were married on
25.11.2022. On account of cruelty extended by the
petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife left the house. The
respondent moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The case was filed on 05.06.2023. The petitioner
filed a reply to the petition on 22.03.2024. He denied the
averments made in the petition and specifically pleaded that he
was threatened by the respondent regarding false implication in a
criminal case. The petitioner also pleaded that after marriage, they
visited Shirdi and offered prayer. They also visited various places
like Bilaspur, Raipur, and Ratanpur Mahamaya temple. Learned
Family Court framed issues. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on
04.10.2024 and the last opportunity was granted to the
petitioner/husband to lead evidence on 07.02.2025.
3. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
CPC on 20.03.2025 wherein for the first time, a plea was taken
that the respondent is a suffering from psychological disorder. It is
also pleaded that the respondent/wife used to call 20-25 times and
her behaviour was not normal.
4. Learned Trial Court considered that after the completion of the
plaintiff's evidence, the application for amendment has been
moved at a belated stage. It is further held that the wife has filed a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court has to
examine whether the husband had sufficient reasons for staying
separately or not and consequently, the application was rejected
with a cost of Rs.1000/-.
5. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the order passed by the learned Family Court is
erroneous. He would further submit that the learned Family Court
ought to have allowed the application. He would also submit that
the application for amendment can be allowed before the
conclusion of the trial. It is also contended that by way of
amendment, the petitioner has elaborated the facts already stated
in the written statement. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, reported in 2022
(16) SCC 1.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the documents.
7. In the matter of Sanjeev Builders (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paras 71.3, 71.3.1 and 71.3.2 held as under:-
"71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
71.3.1 If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties, and
71.3.2 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice
to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any
clear admission made by the party which
confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time
barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other
side of a valuable accrued right (in certain
situations)."
8. A perusal of the petition filed by the respondent would show that a
suit was filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights. The
wife has made various allegations with regard to the demand of
dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply
and denied the allegations.
9. A bare reading of the written statement would make it clear that
there is no whisper with regard to the mental status of the
respondent/wife. The respondent/wife closed her evidence on
04.10.2024. The case was fixed for the defendant's evidence and
on 07.02.2025, the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to
lead evidence. The petitioner moved an application for amendment
on 20.03.2025 taking the only plea that the respondent is
physiologically ill and it is evident from her conduct.
10.Learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that
the same had been moved at a belated stage, particularly after the
plaintiff's evidence.
11.In the matter of Sanjeev Builders (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that all amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in controversy
provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
12.In the present case, the petitioner has made a specific allegation
with regard to the mental status of the respondent/wife which was
never taken in the written statement and thus, it would cause
injustice or prejudice to the other side.
13.The amendment proposed by the petitioner is not required for
proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties as the
respondent/wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights
and the learned Family Court has to adjudicate as to whether there
are sufficient reasons available to the petitioner to reside
separately.
14.The amendment proposed by the petitioner is baseless.
15.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeev
Builders (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for
interference.
16.Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No
cost(s). Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
