Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala K vs Ravi Kiran T G on 12 September, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
- ©onstitiution of india, praying fo set aside the orde baeornd, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 127 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 201h > BEFORE THE HON BLE ME.JUSTICE B S.PATIL ms W.P.No.35174/2011 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SmiShashikala K., W/o Ravikiran, D/o Kermpanna, Aged about 28 years, a R/at No.S16. Muddanna Sereet. li Cross, Mysore Read,- vous Nayandahalli Post. Pantharapalya, . . Bangalore-39. = te 4 ~... PETITIONER (By Sri J.Deepal k, Adv. for Sci ¥. R. .Sadashiva Reddy ,Adv.} AND: Ravi Kiran T.C., . S/o late Gurumurt hy yt. . Age d about 29 years; ._ : R/ al Thorai agnite V illage, . Thoira Nagatte Post, afar' rTalek . : anagere District. ... RESPONDENT This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the ee 26:8.2011 passed by ine Vi Addl. Judge, Family bangalore. in M.C.No. 1844/2009 and etc. This petition coming on lor Prelirninary Nearing, this day. the Court made the following: WP SOL74/201 | ORDER
1. Order passed by the Vi Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.i844/2009 dismissing the anplication & & LO MEET RES f! filed by the petitioner under Order VP Rule 17 CPO seekt:
amendment of the petition is called in question. fo. this "writ. peuitior..
2. Petitioner has filed ihe mai rimonial. case secking a decree ol divorce dissolving her marr age with: the. respondent on the ground of crue In the « petitidn" she Has contended that during her stay with ; tre résbondent 5 husband in his parerits house, petitioner s oni other ti law, and brother-in-law and as uso other relatives of I her basband used to abuse her in Hithy language thereby causing | . both mental and physical torture. They Were. forcing hese bring more money either from her house and when this was refused, employer "or frory petitioner We forced io work as part lime lecturer in different colleges. ; AS the petitioner could not withstand the agony. . to WTUTe a7 ad physical cruelty, she decided to leave the company OF her husband Accordingly, she jeff ihe matrimonial home on xoul Lhe [aise complaint iS. 12.2007. She has also alleged al 'py her husband belore the Police.
WP S574 f/20 1}
3. Petition was resisted. Both the parties have gone. for trial. After the evidence was adduced by both the parties. the indétei was posted lor arguments. Aft this stage, petitioner. has come, up with the present application seeking, amendinent ofthe | petition to incorporate additional. pleadings in paragraphs 2{a) ar af and Sfa) to the effect that during the vear 2006, -pelilioner was working as a Guest Lecturer at Government Aris College and she was teaching Fsycholosy... The respondent was a student under her. As the petitioner had suffering from ailment in her ear, respondent, brought medicine. took her to his room and intoxicating her by administering.a drug committed rape and shs of the petitioner. Later, he thereafter took certain photo 2 started 'biaeckmailing her and loreecd her to marry nim. As the ~ petitioner 'apprehended that her reputation would be spoiled she agreed ta marry him.
4. Petitioner has also sought to contend by the amendment prayed for that the respondent had been addicted to alcohol avid used to consurne alcohol evervday, As he had no income of his own to meet the day to day expenses, he u money from the petitioner. When the petitioner refused fo pay money, he used to assault her everyday. The proposed amendment was re} ected.
o. The Court below, after hearing both sides. "and having . regard to the nature of the amendment! sou glit and the stage: at which the same was sought, ha'.come fo 'the conctasion that - the facts and circumstances of the vase did not ebtitle tne pelilioner to seek such amendraent of 'the. petition 'al such a belated stage. 'This is how the petitioner. 13 Before this court in this Writ Petition: ~
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadir fs and-ihe fimpugned order. The nature of the allegations and the accusation that are sought to be iroduced by way of amendmient, at the stage when the matter as was. posted fer arguments on the main matter clearly discloses that the amendment sought for did not fall within the four provisio to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court c0 re rs. of a Pre 7 ° helow was right and justified in coming to the conclusion: that "the. petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the petition te ; incorporate such accusation and allegations at such belated 7 stage io plead a totally new case. The Court below has also taken note of the faci that the petitio #4, a WP SSE74/201 1 o below in the year 2009 and the alleged incident of cruclty is red view. the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived al by. the Court. below do not suffer from any apparent illegality er error of jurisdiction warranting interference inexercise.of ihe writ jurisdiction. Henee, the writ petition is dismissed. PRS Sd/-
JUDGE