AP High Court Permits Amendment Of Written Statement In Matrimonial Case After Trial Begins, Says Courts Should Not Be Hypertechnical

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a husband to amend his counter in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to correct inadvertent typographical mistakes.

On a contextual reading of the pleading, the Court found that the disputed references were typographical errors.

It held that courts should not adopt a “hyper technical approach” where such corrections are necessary to place the correct factual position before the Court and determine the “real question in controversy.”

The Court accordingly set aside the trial court's order rejecting the amendment application, which was filed after commencement of the trial and closure of the wife's evidence.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, after commencement of trial, an amendment can be allowed only when the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:

“Therefore, in order to try the case on hand on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails, there is a need to place the true facts of the case before the Court so that the Court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. No injustice will be done to the respondent because the proposed amendments seek to bring before the Court the correct factual situation, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the same are required for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Courts should not adopt a hyper technical approach.”

The case arose from matrimonial proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. The husband filed his counter and contested the proceedings. After the enquiry commenced, the wife and her witnesses were examined and her evidence was closed.

At the stage when the matter came up for the husband's evidence, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of his counter.

He stated that certain mistakes had crept into the pleading due to typographical errors, which came to his notice while preparing his examination-in-chief.

One of the proposed amendments concerned a reference to “impotency of the respondent” in the counter. The husband sought to substitute “petitioner” for “respondent”. Similar corrections were sought in references concerning the death of the grandmother and father, the conduct of the husband and his parents, and a statement that one of the parties was “not fit for marital life”.

The husband contended that the mistakes were neither intentional nor admissions and that the proposed amendments would not alter the nature of his defence.

The wife opposed the application, contending that the amendments would amount to withdrawal of admissions. She pointed out that the counter had been filed in October 2022 and that the amendment application was filed nearly three-and-a-half years later, after commencement of the enquiry and closure of her evidence. She therefore argued that the husband had failed to establish due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The trial court rejected the amendment application, prompting the husband to approach the High Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 

Before the High Court, the disputed statements were examined in the context of the counter as a whole.

The High Court considered the disputed statements in the context of the counter as a whole and found that the corrections relating to the death of the grandmother and the statement concerning the husband and his parents were typographical mistakes.

It held that the proposed amendments would bring the correct factual situation before the Court and were necessary for determining the real question in controversy.

It accordingly allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the trial court's order and allowed the application for amendment of the counter.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ramakrishna Akurathi

pdfCounsel for the Respondent: Medapati Santosh Reddy