Even After Framing of Issues, Amendment to Divorce Plea Can Be Allowed If It Elaborates Subsequent Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

“No Bar on Pleading Additional Grounds Under Section 13 HMA If It Helps Avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings”: In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court clarified that amendments to a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even after the framing of issues, can be permitted when the additional facts relate to subsequent conduct amounting to cruelty, and when the amendment would help in determining the real questions in controversy.

Deciding the matter in A227 No. 1261 of 2023, Chitranshi v. Rajnarayan Tripathi, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam dismissed the wife’s challenge to a Family Court’s order allowing her husband to amend his divorce petition. The court found no illegality in the lower court’s decision to allow the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, despite the claim that the trial had technically commenced.

“Mere Framing of Issues Does Not Bar Amendment If No Evidence Has Yet Been Led”: High Court Clarifies Technical Commencement of Trial

The court addressed the core legal issue: whether an amendment to a divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could be permitted after issues have been framed, especially when such amendment appears to introduce a new ground or expand on existing allegations of cruelty.

Justice Nigam observed: “Mere framing of issues cannot be said to be commencement of trial... In the present case, it is not the case of any of the parties that the evidence has begun.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra (2018) 2 SCC 132, the court reiterated that although trial technically commences when the date is fixed for evidence, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not bar an amendment if:

“In spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.”

“Subsequent Facts Indicating Cruelty Can Be Brought On Record Even Post-Issues”: Court Applies Due Diligence Principle

In the divorce case filed by Rajnarayan Tripathi against his wife Chitranshi, initial allegations were limited to desertion and cruelty. Later, through an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17, the husband sought to include subsequent events, including:

• Allegations that the wife was in an inappropriately close relationship with a colleague.

• Claims that she moved around with her male colleague freely, and was seen with him both at work and at home.

• An incident dated 29 July 2022, wherein the wife allegedly abused and threatened the husband, prompting him to lodge a police complaint.

The court observed: “By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has not introduced a new ground but merely elaborated facts that came to light during the pendency of the petition, which may amount to cruelty, if proven.”

It added that even if these facts constituted a new ground under Section 13, such amendment is permissible because:

“There is no prohibition in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for filing a divorce petition on one or more grounds… even assuming that a new ground is being added, it would not be an impediment.”

“Avoiding Multiplicity of Divorce Litigations Is In Public Interest”: Court Affirms Amending Plea To Add New Grounds

The court made a pragmatic observation: “Once the party is permitted to file a second petition even after dismissal of the first petition on a separate ground, there is no impediment in taking that ground by moving an application for amendment in the same petition.”

Thus, the amendment helped achieve two objectives:

1. Avoiding multiplicity of proceedings; and

2. Ensuring that all disputes between the spouses are addressed in a single trial.

The court dismissed the argument that the amendment altered the cause of action, calling it misconceived.

Dismissing the petition filed by the wife, the High Court held: “No illegality has been committed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur in allowing the application for amendment.”

It further directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the pending Marriage Petition No. 291 of 2020, in accordance with the law and Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates expeditious disposal of matrimonial matters.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2025