SMT APARAJITA CHATTERJEE GANGULI Vs. DEBABRATA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the wife/respondent in Matrimonial suit No. 1 of 1993 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, at Alipore. 24-Parganas (South), impugning the order bearing No. 48 dated Nov. 18, 1993, whereby the petitioner's prayer for amendment of written statement stood rejected.

(2.) Husband brought the suit for divorce by way of dissolution of marriage on the ground, inter alia, of cruelty and desertion and the defence, inter alia, of the wife/respondent is not only a mere denial of the incidents as alleged by the husband/Opposite party but also that the husband is himself guilty of cruelty She has, however, not specifically made a counter claim by way of praying for divorce against her husband on the ground of cruelty itself. Her main contention so as to amend her written statement, inter alia, is that as and when she put different questions to her husband and his witnesses in the trial such questions were disallowed by the learned Trial Judge mainly on the ground that in her written statement she did not specifically mention about such incidents. The Trial Judge, while passing the order impugned, has, however, observed, inter alia, that in this application for amendment of the written statement she has stated some of the incidents which have not been mentioned in the written statement at ail and one such alleged incident took place on the Marriage night and the other on the Bowbhat ceremony night and some other incidents allegedly took place within a short span of time of the commencement of their married life. The Trial Judge refused the prayer mainly on the ground that she ought to have alleged all the incidents in the written statement because such incidents were known to her and it at a belated stage such amendments were allowed, then it would cause serious prejudice to the husband/petitioner.

(3.) We have gone through the prayers for amendment of the written statement with minute introspection. It is true that evidenciary details need not always be covered in the pleadings but there must be factual basis for the same in the pleadings generally. Be that as it may, Mr. Bagchi, appearing for the Caveator/O.P. contended before us that some of the averments made in the different paragraphs of the proposed amended versions of the written statement were strictly not in relevance to the case of the wife/respondent. If amendments are allowed at all the same must be made with a finding that such amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. In our view, Law enjoins upon every Matrimonial Courts under provision of Order 32A Rule 5 C.P.C. to enquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the plaintiff and also the facts alleged by the defendant, that is the reason why the Legislature in its wisdom thought that within the periphery of the adversary system there may not be any proper vindication of justice to the weaker spouse in a Matrimonial strife and family Courts were necessary. It is true that Courts are generally of the view that where matrimonial disputes are concerned Court should liberally allow the prayers for amendments of pleadings unless such proposed amendments go against the basic fabric of the original case pleaded. The wife has taken the. defence of cruelty against the husband and perhaps she has not yet made out her case as to whether she would make a counter claim, but as yet she has not done so. In the schedule of amendments annexed to this present application in revision we and the proposed amendments in paragraphs ;(a), 5(b), 7(a) and 7(b) to be not relevant at all so as to be incorporated in the written statement by way of amendment. But in so far as the propose amendments in Paragraphs 10(a), 11(a), 11(b), 11(c) and 16(a) and 16(b) and 16(c) are concerned even though they contained factual details and there might be some repetitions here and there, we think, for ends of justice, the said amendments to the written statement should stand allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200.00 to the husband/petitioner. We award this cost just because the wife-respondent is a working girl. This revisional application is allowed to the extent indicated above The order No. 43 dated 18.11.93 stands set aside.