2012 (10) TMI 1153 - HC - Indian Laws

Court permits wife's amendment in Section 125 case, emphasizes flexibility in pleading rules

Sunitabai W/o Narayan Balai Versus Narayan S/o Ramprasad Balai

The Court allowed the applicant wife's revision under Section 397 u/s 401 of the Cr. P.C., challenging the dismissal of her application to amend the ... - Issues involved: Revision under Section 397 u/s 401 of Cr. P.C. for dismissal of application for amendment in principal application filed under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.Summary:1. The applicant wife filed a revision under Section 397 u/s 401 of the Cr. P.C. challenging the dismissal of her application for amending the principal application filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. The respondent had remarried after the initial application was filed, and the applicant sought to include this subsequent event in the record. The applicant argued that the Trial Court should have allowed the amendment considering the nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.2. The respondent's counsel contended that the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC did not apply to criminal cases like the present one, and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. It was also argued that the revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr. P.C. was not maintainable against the dismissal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.3. After hearing both counsels and examining the relevant documents, the Court proceeded to analyze the case.4. The Court noted that strict rules of pleadings do not apply to cases under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. and that subsequent events can be included in the record through an amendment or a separate application. In this case, the allegation of the respondent's second marriage arose during the pendency of the principal application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., necessitating its inclusion in the record.5. Referring to established principles, the Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. are quasi-civil in nature, and the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC may not be strictly applicable. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted the right of parties to amend pleadings based on subsequent events during the course of the case.6. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the applicant to amend the principal application, and granted the respondent the liberty to file for consequential amendment in his reply. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court for further proceedings.7. The Trial Court was instructed to receive the record promptly and proceed with the trial, and the revision was allowed accordingly.