SABINA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P -5), whereby, application moved by the petitioner for permission to amend the divorce petition was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the by way of amendment, petitioner only wanted to incorporate the facts, which had occurred during the pendency of the petition. The cause of action would not change on account of amendment of the petition. Petitioner had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. The facts now sought to be brought on record would further establish the ground of cruelty. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Ranmala Exports Pvt.Ltd. and others AIR 2012 SC 1887, wherein, it was held as under: - ''11) It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper -technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 12)In view of the fact that the amendment application came to be filed immediately after filing of the suit (suit came to be filed in 2007 and the amendment application was in 2008) i.e. before commencement of the trial and taking note of the fact that the learned single Judge confined the relief only to a certain extent and also that in the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to explain how the money was paid, though necessary averments in the form of foundation have already been laid in the original plaint, we hold that by this process the plaintiff is not altering the cause of action and in any way prejudice defendants. '' Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the petition. Petitioner had failed to lead his evidence despite number of opportunities but had filed the application in question to harass the respondent. The facts now sought to be brought on record were not relevant for the just decision of the case. In the present case, petitioner has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner moved an application for permission to amend the divorce petition. By way of amendment, petitioner wants to incorporate the facts that the respondent had filed one complaint with the police and the same had been referred to Women Cell, Patiala which had lowered the reputation of the petitioner and his family members. Respondent had also filed another complaint before Fatehgarh Sahib Police and the same had also been referred to Women Cell. Petitioner, his parents and relatives were called by the Women Cell. Respondent had filed another complaint before the Ludhiana Police and the same was referred to Superintendent of Police (D) Jagraon. Petitioner, his parents and relatives were called during inquiry proceedings. Thus, by way of amendment, petitioner only wants to incorporate the facts that the respondent has filed false complaints before different police stations against the petitioner and substantiate his plea that respondent had treated him with cruelty. The said complaints have been filed by the respondents during the pendency of the petition. The trial Court erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for permission to amend the divorce petition as by way of amendment, petitioners wants to incorporate the facts which have taken place during the pendency of the petition. Petitioner does not want to change the cause of action but only wants to further elaborate his plea that he has been treated with cruelty by the respondent. 5. In these circumstances, application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P -5) is set aside. Consequently, application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed.;