The Allahabad High Court has firmly held that a spouse cannot amend pleadings to seek restitution of conjugal rights after a decade into a divorce case. The Court called such moves nothing but delaying tactics and directed the Family Court to conclude the matter within two months.
The case titled Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh stems from a marriage solemnized in 2011. The wife, Meenu, left the matrimonial home in 2012 due to dowry demands and harassment. She lodged an FIR in 2013 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, she filed for divorce in 2014.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Intelligence Officer Accused in Colleague's Suicide Case
Over the course of the next ten years, the respondent-husband repeatedly filed applications to summon witnesses, which were rejected multiple times. The High Court, in 2024, directed the Family Court to conclude the trial within four months. But just before the final hearing, the husband moved an application seeking amendment to add a plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
“The respondent has recently filed an application for amendment just to delay the proceedings and to harass his deserted wife, who is running from pillar to post for the last 10 years,”
— Allahabad High Court
Read Also:- J&K High Court Quashes Rape Case After 7-Year Relationship; Cites Delay and Lack of Coercion
The High Court Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh observed that the amendment was not made in good faith. The husband had known the facts since 2014, yet chose to raise the issue only at the final stage of hearing. This conduct, the Court held, directly violated the principle of due diligence as required under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
“Unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court… such amendments are not permissible,”
— Justice Brij Raj Singh, delivering the judgment
The Court also criticized the Family Court for allowing the amendment, despite its own earlier findings that the husband was attempting to delay proceedings. It noted that multiple applications for summoning witnesses were earlier rejected, and the evidence stage had already closed when the amendment was filed.
Relying on precedents like J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh and M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, the Court reiterated that post-trial amendments require strong justification — which was lacking in this case.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Bhushan Steel Liquidation To Allow JSW To File Review Petition
“The amendment application was filed after 10 years with malafide intention and is against the spirit of fair trial,”
— Allahabad High Court
Setting aside the Family Court’s order dated 20.02.2025, the High Court allowed the wife’s appeal and issued fresh directions for completion of the trial.
“The Family Court is directed to proceed with the case on day-to-day basis and decide the same within two months from today without granting any unnecessary adjournments,”
— Allahabad High Court Order
Case Title: Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 49 of 2025]
