VINOD GEORGE Vs. NITA VINOD GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tamhane, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 12th September, 2018 by which the learned Family Court has rejected the Petitioner's application for amendment of his written statement.

(3.) Mr. Tamhane, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amendment is related to the permanent custody of the child and by incorporating some additional facts and grounds the written statement, the fundamental character and nature of the written statement would not be changed. He submits that the amendment ought to have been allowed since the Petitioner obtained the custody of the minor son only in May, 2018 and only thereafter secured knowledge to back the amended pleadings. He therefore submits that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by refusing the amendment.