Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Application at Final Stage to Delay Divorce Proceedings is Abuse of Process: Allahabad High Court

Respondent’s amendment application after 10 years of delay is a deliberate tactic to defeat litigation and harass the wife”— Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, sharply criticizing the misuse of procedural tools to delay matrimonial proceedings. Setting aside an order by the Family Court allowing a belated amendment in a pending divorce suit, the Court held that such conduct is against the spirit of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and constitutes an abuse of judicial process.

The appellant, Meenu Rajvanshi, married the respondent Brijesh on May 1, 2011. After enduring dowry demands and alleged harassment, she left the matrimonial home on December 31, 2012, and later lodged an FIR in 2013 under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. On November 5, 2014, she filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Despite the long pendency of the case (over 10 years), the respondent repeatedly sought to delay proceedings by filing frivolous applications to summon witnesses, all of which were dismissed. Consequently, the appellant approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, which on September 21, 2024, directed the Family Court to dispose of the matter within four months.

Key Legal Question:

Whether a defendant can amend pleadings and introduce a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights at the final stage of a decade-old matrimonial dispute.

Observation on Order VI Rule 17 CPC:

The Court emphasized that amendments after the commencement of trial are permitted only if the applicant could not, despite due diligence, have raised the issue earlier. Here, the respondent failed to offer any plausible explanation for his delay.

“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 Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma [(2019) 4 SCC 332], where it was held that: “Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit.”

The High Court held that the proposed amendment not only changed the nature of the case but was a deliberate effort to frustrate the litigation.

The Court rebuked the Family Court for allowing the amendment despite a binding order to decide the case within four months: “...the Family Court without application of proper judicial mind allowed the said application.”

It also rejected the respondent’s reliance on Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (Civil Appeal Nos. 5901-5902 of 2021), noting that in that case the facts came to light only during trial, unlike in the present matter where the respondent was always aware of the cause of action.

Further invoking J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh [(2012) 2 SCC 300], the Court reiterated the significance of "due diligence" in post-trial amendment applications: “Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested… and is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with.”

Ultimately, the amendment was found to be mala fide, designed to harass the wife and delay justice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s order dated February 20, 2025, and directed that the divorce suit be decided within two months on a day-to-day basis, refusing to tolerate any adjournments, even on the ground of lawyer strikes.

This ruling is a stern reminder to litigants who abuse procedural laws to obstruct matrimonial litigation. It upholds the judiciary's commitment to expedite family matters and prevent legal harassment.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025