Bombay High Court
JANHAVI ALOK SHAHAPURKARversusALOK MADHUKAR SHAHAPURKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- N R BORKAR
Holding
The amendment application is to be allowed and the Family Court's order rejecting it is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner-wife filed a writ petition challenging the Family Court's order rejecting her application to amend a counterclaim in a divorce proceeding on the ground that the amendment was sought after the issues were framed. The High Court examined the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram, which emphasizes that procedural rules should not bar relief unless there is mala fides or irreparable injury. The Court found no mala fides in the petitioner's amendment, which sought to include a prayer for permanent alimony. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order and directed that the amendment be permitted. The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the amendment application filed after the framing of issues
- Whether the amendment seeking permanent alimony can be allowed despite procedural lapse
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- family law
- divorce
- permanent alimony
- procedural law
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
6-cwp-12922-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12922 OF 2025
Janhavi A. Shahapurkar …Petitioner
V/s.
Alok M. Shahapurkar ...Respondent.
…………..
Mr. Sandeep R. Wahmare for the Petitioner.
Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan for the Respondent.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 18.04.2026.
P.C. :
1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 21 st July
2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pune below
Exhibit-27 in Petition No. A-1107 of 2022, whereby the learned
Family Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner -
wife seeking permission to amend the counterclaim filed by her in
a petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, the
learned counsel for the respondent-husband and perused the
impugned order.
3. Learned Family Court has rejected the amendment
application solely on the ground that, it came to be filed after
framing of issues.
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2
6-cwp-12922-25.odt
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahila Ramkali Devi and
Ors. vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives
and Ors.1, has observed:
“20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended
to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party
cannot be refused just relief merely because of some
mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of
rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend
the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the
party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder
he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be
compensated for by an order of cost.
(emphasis supplied)
5. I have perused the amendment application. By the said
application, the petitioner wants to incorporate prayer in respect
of permanent alimony. The application does not appear to be
made with mala fide intent. The learned Family Court was thus not
justified in rejecting the amendment application. In that view of
the matter, the following order is passed.
ORDER
a. The Petition is allowed.
b. The impugned order is set aside.
c. The Family Court shall permit the petitioner-wife to
carry out the amendment as sought.
6. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
1 (2015) 13 SCC 132
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2
Checking your session…