2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate
of 2005 (Act No.43 of 2005). The petitioner has entered
crore to Rs.5 crore. The said application having been opposed
dated 19.04.2024 rejecting the application. Aggrieved by the
4. The case of the Appellant in brief is that:
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
At the time filing of the petitioner
compensation sought by the petitioner under
different heads was crystallized at Rs.2 Crores. In
view of the escalation in costs, increase in prices of
properties, commodities etc., advancing of the age of
the petitioner, it is essential to seek for enhancement
of the compensation from Rs.2 Crores to Rs.5
Crores. In this regard the capacity of the respondent
is so far as the financial status, social status and
relevant aspects are taken into consideration in
seeking for such enhancement. The proposed
amendment will not change the nature of the
proceedings or alter the cause of action. With all
these contentions prays to allow the application.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel
for respondent filed objections stating that, the
present application is not maintainable either in law
or on facts, the application is misconceived and
untenable under law. The grounds urged for the
claim of enhancement of compensation from Rs.2
Crores to Rs.5 Crores are baseless and untenable in
law. The proposed amendment does not relate to a
simple infirmity but exposes the greedy nature of the
petitioner to harass the respondent. The proposed
amendment if allowed would cause serious prejudice
to the case already pleaded by the respondent. It
has come in the course of evidence that the parties
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
have hardly stayed together or shared residence.
When the petitioner has not made out a case for
grant of compensation already claimed, the question
of enhancement of the same does not arise at all.
With all these contentions prays to dismiss the
application with costs.
6. Highly aggrieved with the impugned
order of the trial court, the present respondent has
preferred this appeal on the following grounds:
1. It is submitted that the impugned order is
unsustainable since the Trial Court has not
considered the reasoning made out by the
Appellant in support of her application along
with the pleadings, facts, documents and
grounds urged by the Appellant herein in
support of her Application. The Trial Court
erred in passing the Impugned order without
applying its mind as contemplated under the
Act.
2. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the
history of the case and the conduct of the
Respondent that the proceedings of Crl. Mis.
No.45/2015 were stayed at the behest of the
Respondent and thereafter the case was
renumbered as Crl. Mis. No.220/2020, thus
causing substantial delay and harassment to
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
the Appellant. This serves as a form of
harassment to the Appellant, adding to her
distress and delaying her access to justice and
redressal of her grievances. The conduct of
Respondent has set as a concerning precedent
that undermines the expeditious and fair
resolution of disputes under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
fact that the application of the Appellant was
as a result of these compelling circumstances
and escalating costs. The Trial Court dismissed
the Appellant's application for the amendment
of the prayer column for enhancement of
compensation from Rs.2 Crores to Rs.5 Crores
without considering the same. This dismissal,
it is contended, did not sufficiently consider
the escalating costs and increased prices of
properties which justified amendment. Hence
the impugned order is liable to be reversed.
3. Misinterpretation of the Appellant's
Intentions:
The Trial Court's observations imply a
misjudged perception of the Appellant's
intentions, branding it as an act of greed
rather than a legitimate claim for adequate
compensation in light of the changed
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
circumstances since the original filing is
unjust. Hence the impugned order is liable to
be reversed.
4. Reliance on Precedents: The Learned Trial
Judge has failed to appreciate the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Anr.
Reported in Criminal Appeal No.(s) 516/2016
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1537 of 2016),
in the proper perspective, considering the fact
that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly
held that, amendment and incorporation of
additional prayers in proceedings under
Domestic Violence Act. Interpreting it in a
manner that may not fully apply to the specific
circumstances and request of the Appellant for
amendment solely for compensation
enhancement. In this back drop the impugned
order is erroneous and liable to be reversed
and requires the kind intervention of this
Court.
5. Applicability of Domestic Violence Act,
Section 22: It is contended that the
Appellant's request for enhanced
compensation is legitimately grounded in the
provisions of Section 22 of the Domestic
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
Violence Act, given the alleged domestic
violence and the subsequent emotional
distress and mental torture suffered by the
petitioner. The Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the same. Hence the impugned
order is liable to be reversed.
6. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at a
conclusion that "Petitioner is entitle for
compensation only if she proves that, she was
subjected to Domestic Violence in the hands of
the Respondent" It is further held that "the
concept the compensation comes only if
Domestic Violence is proved". With these
observations the application dismissed. These
observations came to be are totally erroneous
considering the fact that the Appellant has
merely sought for amendment of the prayer
and not for grant of compensation as sought
for in the amendment application.
7. The learned Trail Judge has failed to
appreciate the fact that the Respondent herein
has been protracting the proceedings under
various pretexts and further the Interlocutory
Applications filed by the Appellant herein have
been pending since the year 2020. The same
has led to escalation of cost of living.
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
8. The learned Trial Judge has failed to
appreciate that delay by itself cannot be a
criteria to dismiss the application as such an
opinion would come in the way of delivery of
justice.
9. The impugned order passed by the Trial
Judge is opposed to the facts of the case,
probabilities of the case and the provisions of
Law.
10. The impugned order amounts to
miscarriage of justice. In any view of the
matter the impugned Order as per Annexure-E
is unsustainable and thus, is not justified as
the same is erroneous.
11. The impugned order is otherwise opposed
to law and is liable to be set aside.
12. The Appellant may be permitted to urge
additional grounds in support of her case at
the time of arguments.
13. The impugned order is passed on 19-04-
2024, copy applied on 20-04-2024 and
delivered on 02-05-2024 and hence the
present appeal being preferred on this day is
in time.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
Hence, prayed to set aside the order dated
19.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 220/2020 on the
file of V JMFC... Mysuru of the trial court.
7. Heard both sides.
8. In the light of above materials and
contentions of the appellant, following points raised
for consideration;
1. Whether the impugned order dated
19.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No.220/2020
on the file of V JMFC., Mysuru, is incorrect,
illegal and improper?
2. Whether the order dated 19.04.2024 passed
in Crl.Misc. No.220/2020 on the file of the V
JMFC., Mysuru, do call for interference of this
court?
3. What order?
9. Findings of this court to the aforesaid points is:
Point No.1 In the affirmative
Point No.2 In the affirmative
Point No.3 As per the final order for the
following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
REASONS
POINT No.1 and 2:-
10. The appellant herein assailed order dated
19.4.2024 in Crl.Mis.No.220/2020 on the file of V
JMFC, Mysuru. The appellant herein is the petitioner
and respondent herein is the opponent/respondent in
Crl. Mis.No.220/2020.
11. The appellant herein has filed application
for amendment of the petition. The court by
impugned order dismissed the application. Aggrieved
by the impugned order, the present appeal is
preferred.
12. The appellant/petitioner filed application
U/s.12 of PWDV Act seeking reliefs. The said
application is opposed by the respondent. The matter
is tried by the trial court and the matter is set for
arguments. At that stage, the petitioner/appellant
maintained application for amendment of petition
seeking amendment of the petition with respect to
compensation from Rs.2 crore to 5 crore. The
appellant urged in the application that, in view of the
escalation in costs, increase in prices of properties,
commodities etc., it is ONR necessary to seek for
enhancement of compensation from Rs.2 crore to 5
crore. It is also urged that the capacity of the
respondent in so far as the financial status, social
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
status and relevant aspects are taken into
consideration while seeking enhancement. It is also
stated that, the nature of the proceedings will not
change and there is no alteration in the cause of
action. With these, petitioner/appellant seeks
amendment of the petition.
13. The application of the appellant was
countered by the respondent by filing objection. It is
contended by the respondent that the guidelines
applicable for allowing amendments in a civil case
can also be applied in D.V.case. The proposed
amendment does not relate to a simple infirmity but
exposes the greedy nature of the petitioner to harass
the respondent. The amendment if allowed would
cause serious prejudice to the case. It is further
contended that, the grounds urged for amendment
are baseless and untenable in law. It is important
that the petitioner has to establish the acts of
Domestic Violence. But, the petitioner has miserably
failed to establish any kind of domestic violence. It is
clear from the evidence that the parties have hardly
stayed in the shared house. The petitioner has not
made out a case for grant of compensation already
claimed. Hence, there is no question of enhancement
of the further compensation. The case is long
pending case and the application is hit by inordinate
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
delay. With these respondent seeks to dismiss the
application.
14. After hearing the arguments of both sides
and giving thoughtful consideration to the material
on record, it reveals that the petitioner/appellant
herein filed application U/5.12 of D.V.Act seeking
number of reliefs. Same is challenged by the
respondent. After the evidence, the matter is set for
argument. At this stage, the present application is
filed by the petitioner. There are number of facts,
allegations and grounds are putforth by both the
sides. If the scope of this appeal is considered, the
trial court has passed the order dismissing the
application of the appellant rejecting prayer for
amendment of the petition. Now this court has look
into the correctness and legality of the order. Hence,
the details of the case with regard to the other
aspects involved in the case are not necessary to be
discussed and commented upon.
15. The petitioner/appellant has initially filed
the petition seeking for compensation U/s.22 of
PWDV Act for Rs.2 crore. Now by way of this
amendment, the appellant seeks to enhance
compensation from Rs.2 crore to 5 crore and in
respect of that, she seeks amendment of the
petition. The issue involved here in this appeal is,
whether the appellant is entitle for the relief of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
seeking amendment to the petition or not. The other
issue is whether the trial court is proper and
rejecting her prayer of amendment.
16. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant has
argued and put up many facts with regard to the
case and in respect of the application. It is argued
that the petitioner herein is seeking amendment to
the petition to amend petition in respect of
compensation from Rs.2 crore to Rs.5 crore. The said
amendment will not affect the nature of the petition.
Even it is argued that the petitioner herein is simply
seeking for amendment to the petition. However, the
court in its discretion can order after appreciating the
evidence on record. But at this stage, the
petitioner/appellant is only seeks amendment, which
in no way affects the respondent and his case.
17. On the other hand, the senior counsel for
the respondent put up arguments that the said
amendment cannot be allowed. He also put up many
facts with regard to the present case including the
merits of the case. In respect of the present
application in question, he argues that the order of
the trial court is proper and correct. The
appellant/petitioner has to first establish that there is
a domestic violence, after that, only she is entitle for
reliefs including the compensation. The relief is
subject to proving of the allegations of domestic
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
violence. He emphasize on the provision of the
D.V.Act and pointed that in the present case, the
petitioner/appellant has failed to substantiate the
allegation. When she is not entitle for the
compensation, there is no question of seeking
enhancement from Rs.2 crore to Rs.5 crore. It is also
argued by the respondent that the amendment itself
shows her greedy nature. The grounds urged are not
justifiable to grant relief and allow amendment.
Hence, on these grounds seeks to dismiss the
application.
18. It is pertinent to note that, the
petitioner/appellant seeks to amend the petition.
Though the counsel for the respondent has pointed
out that the appellant has to establish the Domestic
Violence then only she is entitle for the
compensation, it is to be appreciated that the nature
of the application and the prayer sought in the same.
In the application it is sought to amend the petition
in respect of the compensation from Rs.2 crore to
Rs.5 crore. It is to be appreciated that, even this
amendment is allowed the court by weighing the
evidence on record can grant reasonable, justifiable
compensation. Only the amendment is sought from
Rs.2 crore to Rs.5 crore that does not mean that the
court has to grant Rs.5 crore compensation. It is
after appreciation of the evidence and facts and on
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
law the court in its wisdom and discretion can grant
proper and appropriate relief.
19. The trial court in order to support its order
has relied upon the observation of authority in
Ramesh Vs. Navaneetha and observed that in that
case, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the
Domestic Violence has to be proved for seeking of
compensation. It is to be appreciated that the
observation of the Hon'ble High Court is in respect of
granting relief after proving of those Domestic
Violence. The trial court here has come to conclusion
that only after proving the domestic violence, the
appellant is entitle for the relief. The court has
missed the link that the present application is only
for amendment. The court after appreciating the
evidence with regard to proving of domestic violence
can grant any relief. The stage is premature to come
to conclusion that, whether Domestic Violence is
caused or not. The court after considering all the
facts and circumstances, appreciating the evidence
and hearing the arguments on both the sides can
come to conclusion, whether the domestic violence is
caused or not and whether the appellant/petitioner is
entitle for reasonable, justifiable compensation
including the other reliefs. But only because
amendment is sought, it is not necessary domestic
violence to be proved. It is not pre-condition for
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
seeking amendment that domestic violence has to be
proved. This observation of the trial court is not
correct and correct.
20. Now, in respect of amendment to the
petition, the observation of the trial court, while
rejecting the application is that, petitioner is entitle
for compensation only if she proves that she is
subjected to domestic violence in the hands of
respondent. But, there is no observation by the trial
court with regard to whether the appellant is entitle
for relief of amendment to the petition. The reason
for rejecting the amendment application as per trial
court is that, the petitioner is entitle for relief of
compensation only if she prove the domestic
violence. But, the trial court has not assigned any
reason why the amendment is not necessary to the
petition, why the petitioner is not permitted to
amend the petition. The reason assigned by the trial
court is not in consonance with the relief prayed in
the application for amendment.
The reason assigned by the trial court comes to
into picture. While considering the petition of the
petitioner on merit, that whether the petitioner is
entitle for compensation or not subject to proving of
domestic violence. But, here the trial court has
assigned the very same reason for rejection of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
amendment, which has no relevancy for rejection of
the application. As stated earlier the trial court has
not assigned any reason as to why there is no
necessity for amendment and the petitioner is not
permitted to amend the petition. At the end of the
day its only amendment to the petition and not the
relief granted to the petitioner, which is subject to
result of the petition. Now the point to be
appreciated is that, whether the amendment can be
carried out in respect of the petition under D.V.Act.
In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the authority. Even before the trial court he has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
Kunapareddy @Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs.
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Anr. Reported
in Crl.A.No.(S) 516/2016. The very same
authority is placed before this court also to
substantiate his argument. This court has gone
through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"We understood in this backdrop, it
cannot be said that the court dealing with
the application under DV Act has no power
and/or jurisdiction to allow the amendment
of the said application. If the amendment
becomes necessary in view of subsequent
events (escalation of prices in the instant
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
case) or to avoid multiplicity of litigation,
Court will the have power to permit such an
amendment. It is said that procedure is the
handmaid of justice and is to come to the
aid of the justice rather than defeating it. It
is nobody's case that respondent no. 1 was
not entitled to file another application
claiming the reliefs which she sought to
include in the pending application by way of
amendment. If that be so, we see no
reason, why the applicant be not allowed to
incorporate this amendment in the pending
application rather than filing a separate
application. It is not that there is a
complete ban/bar of amendment in the
complaints in criminal courts which are
governed by the Code, though undoubtedly
such power to allow the amendment has to
be exercised sparingly and with caution
under limited circumstances. The
pronouncement on this is contained in the
recent judgment of this court in
S.R.Sukumar Vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram
(2015) 9 SCC 609 in the following paras:
"17. Insofar as merits of the
contention regarding allowing is true that
there is of amendment application, it no
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
specific provision in the Code to amend
either a complaint or a petition filed under
the provisions of the Code, but the Courts
have held that the petitions seeking such
amendment to correct curable infirmities
can be allowed even in respect of
complaints. In U.P Pollution Control Board
Vs Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987) 3 SCC
684, wherein the name of the company was
wrongly mentioned in the complaint that is,
instead of Modi Industries Ltd. The name of
the company was mentioned as Modi
Distillery and the name was sought to be
amended. In such factual background, this
court has held as follows:-
"...The learned Single Judge has
focused his attention only on the [pic]
technical flaw in the complaint and has
failed to comprehend that the flaw had
occurred due to the recalcitrant attitude of
Modi Distillery and furthermore the infirmity
is one which could be easily removed by
having the matter remitted to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate with a direction to call
upon the appellant to make the formal
amendments to the averments Contained in
para 2 of the complaint so as to make the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
controlling company of the industrial unit
figure as the concerned accused in the
complaint. All that has to be done is the
making of a formal application for
amendment by the appellant for leave to
amend by substituting the name of Modi
Industries Limited, the company owning the
industrial unit, in place of Modi Distillery ....
Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a
nature which could be easily cured."
18. What is discernible from the
U.P. Pollution Control Board's case is that
easily curable legal infirmity could be cured
by means of a formal application for
amendment. If the amendment sought to
be made relates to a simple infirmity which
is curable by means of a formal amendment
and by allowing such amendment, no
prejudice could be caused to the other side,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no
enabling provision in the Code for
entertaining such amendment, the Court
may permit such an amendment to be
made. On the contrary, if the amendment
sought to be made in the complaint does
not relate either to a curable infirmity or the
same cannot be corrected by a formal
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
amendment or if there is likelihood of
prejudice to the other side, then the court
shall not allow such amendment in the
complaint.
19. In this context, provisions of
Sub-Section (2) of Section 28 of the DV Act
gain significance. Whereas proceedings
under certain sections of the Dv Act as
specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 28
are to be governed by the Code, the
Legislature at the same time incorporated
the provision like sub-section (2) as well
which empowers the Court to law down its
own procedure for disposal of the
application under Section 12 or Sec.23(2) of
the D V Act.
This provision has been incorporated
by the Legislature keeping a definite
purpose in mind. Under Section 12, an
application can be made to a Magistrate by
an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer
or any other person on behalf of the
aggrieved person to claim one or more
reliefs under the said act. Section 23 deals
with the power of Magistrate to grant
interim and exparte orders and sub-section
(2) of Section 23 is a special provision
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
carved out in this behalf which is as
follows:-
"(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that
an application prima facie discloses that the
respondent is committing or has committed
an act of domestic violence or that there is
a likelihood that the respondent may
commit an act of that the viesonce, he may
grant an exparte order on the basis of the
affidavit in such form, as may be
prescribed, of the aggrieved person under
section 18, section 19, section 20, section
21 of, as the case may be, section 22
against the respondent."
If the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court if
carefully appreciated, it has categorically laid down
that the court has power and jurisdiction to allow the
amendment application. If the amendment becomes
necessary in view of subsequent event such as
escalation of prices or to avoid multiplicity of
litigations, there is no complete ban or bar of
amendment in the complaints in criminal courts. As
per the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court
amendment to the petition can be allowed, if the
amendment is necessary. It has categorically stated
there is no bar or ban of amendment in the
complaints in the criminal courts. Such being the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
case, there is no reason why the amendment cannot
be allowed to be carried out by the petitioner to the
petition in this case.
21. As stated earlier, the reason for rejection of
amendment by the trial court is not justifiable. It
seems the court has misread the observation of
Hon'ble Apex Court. The trial court has observed in
its impugned order that, in the case before the
Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner has sought
amendment of entire prayer and was intended to
amend additional prayer. But in the present case,
petitioner is seeking only amendment of hike in the
compensation. This observation of the trial court is
not correct. It is to be appreciated that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has laid down that amendment to the
petition can be allowed, if the amendment is
necessary in view of the subsequent event. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically stated the nature
of issue involved in that case where it has in the
judgment in a bracket specifically stated escalation of
prices in the instant case that means in the
subsequent event the amendment can be allowed.
Whether the part of the prayer or additional prayer
or entire prayer it does not make any difference for
amendment. Amendment is to the petition including
additional prayer or amendment to the prayer or
entire prayer the Hon'ble Apex Court has not
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
specified, differentiated or classified that particular
portion of the petition or particular prayer has to be
amended. It has not stated anything in its judgment.
The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the trial court
has a power to allow the amendment. Such being the
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
observation of the trial court in the impugned order
differentiating the entire prayer, additional prayer
and amendment to the prayer is not proper and
correct.
22. As such, as observed earlier, only because
the amendment is allowed and the petition is
amended, it does not automatically gives conclusion
that the petitioner is entitle for relief to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.5 crore. The court after
appreciation of material on record has to come
proper conclusion and has to granting reasonable,
justifiable relief in accordance with law. Hence, if the
amendment is allowed that will not affect the
respondent as the petitioner has to substantiate
domestic violence to get any amount of
compensation either 2 crore or 5 crore, subject to
proof of the same, she is entitle for relief. The said
amendment has to be allowed. The observation of
the trial court is not proper and correct as discussed
above. Hence, there is a need to interfere with the
order of the trial court. The appellant has made out
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
grounds to allow the appeal and to set aside the
impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is
set aside. The amendment application filed by the
appellant is hereby allowed. Accordingly, point No.1
and 2 held in affirmative.
Point No.3:
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellant U/s
29 of PWDV Act, 2005 is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated
19.04.2024 passed in Crl.Mis. No.220/2020
on the file of V JMFC, Mysuru, is hereby set
aside.
Application for amendment filed by
the petitioner/appellant is hereby allowed.
Appellant/petitioner is permitted to
amend the petition as prayed in the
amendment application.
Send copy of this Judgment along
with Trial court records forthwith.
4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and
re-consideration of entire material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6696
impugned order warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 or Section
482 of Cr.P.C. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the
petitioner, who is contesting the proceedings, would have an
opportunity to file additional statement of objections to the
amended petition and contest the proceedings on merits and as
such, there is no warrant for interference in the present
petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Liberty is
reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional statement
of objections to the amended petition and contest the same in
accordance with law. All rival contentions kept open.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM
