The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court’s decision that allowed an amendment in a pending divorce case. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, held that mere framing of issues does not amount to the commencement of trial and therefore, the amendment sought by the husband was rightly permitted. The order, dated September 22, 2025, came in a case titled Chitranshi vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi, arising from proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur.
Background
The dispute began with a divorce petition filed by Rajnarayan Tripathi in 2020 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion. His wife, Chitranshi, denied all allegations in her written statement. After both sides completed their pleadings, the Family Court framed issues in July 2022.
A few months later, the husband filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking to amend certain paragraphs in his divorce petition. The amendments included new details alleging his wife’s close association with a male colleague, behavior he claimed was "immoral" and distressing to the marriage.
Chitranshi opposed the application, arguing that the amendment was an afterthought and introduced an entirely new cause of action after the commencement of trial, which is prohibited under the CPC.
However, on December 12, 2022, the Family Court allowed the amendment, imposing a cost of ₹800. This prompted Chitranshi to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Family Court’s discretion.
Court's Observations
Justice Nigam began by analyzing the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which governs amendments in pleadings. The Court recalled that while amendments can be made "at any stage," the proviso bars such applications after the trial has begun-unless the party shows that, despite due diligence, the matter couldn’t have been raised earlier.
The key question, therefore, was: Had the trial commenced?
The Court explained that the mere framing of issues doesn’t amount to commencement of trial.
"Technically, the trial begins when evidence starts, not when issues are settled," the judge noted, referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra (2018).
The bench further observed,
"There can be situations where facts affecting the parties emerge after the filing of the suit or even after the settlement of issues. Such facts can be brought by way of amendment in order to do complete justice."
It was emphasized that the object of Rule 17’s proviso was to prevent frivolous or delaying tactics, not to stifle genuine claims arising from new developments.
The Court also cited Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Patel (2021) to clarify that amendments can be permitted even after trial commencement, provided new facts come to light during proceedings and are relevant to determining the dispute.
Decision
After considering the rival arguments, Justice Nigam upheld the Family Court’s view. The Court found that the additional details sought to be included by Rajnarayan did not change the nature of his divorce plea but merely elaborated on the facts constituting cruelty.
"The proposed amendments are elaborations of facts that came to the plaintiff’s knowledge during pendency of the divorce petition. If proved, they may amount to cruelty," the Court observed.
Rejecting the petitioner's contention that new grounds were being introduced, the bench remarked that Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows multiple grounds for divorce, and even if a new one were being added, it would not bar the amendment.
"Decision of a divorce petition on one ground will not operate as res judicata for another ground," Justice Nigam added, stressing that allowing such amendments helps avoid multiple proceedings.
Concluding the matter, the Court found no illegality in the Family Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed, the judgment stated, directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, to expedite the disposal of Marriage Petition No. 291 of 2020 without unnecessary adjournments.
The Court instructed the Family Court to proceed in accordance with law and to ensure both parties are given a fair opportunity to lead evidence. The judge also invoked Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates speedy disposal of matrimonial cases.
With this, the High Court's decision effectively closed the procedural dispute, clearing the way for the Family Court to continue hearing the main divorce petition on merits.
Case Title: Chitranshi vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 1261 of 2023
Delivered On: September 22, 2025