Bombay High Court

AMOL JAGANNATH GAIKWADversusSONALI AMOL GAIKWAD

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The amendment is not necessary to decide the real controversy, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Amol Jagannath Gaikwad, filed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that denied his application to amend the divorce plaint. He sought to insert a new paragraph alleging that the respondent's statements in her written answer were false and amounted to cruelty, which he claimed was essential for his divorce claim under Section 13(1)(i‑a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court held that the amendment was unnecessary for adjudicating the dispute, as the alleged cruelty could be addressed during trial through cross‑examination or evidence. The High Court examined whether the amendment was required to decide the real controversy and concluded it was not. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could contest the respondent's allegations at trial without amending the plaint.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to the divorce plaint seeking to allege cruelty based on the respondent's written statement is necessary for adjudicating the dispute
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the Family Court's refusal to allow such amendment

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13(1)(i-a)

Subjects

divorce
amendment of plaint
writ petition
Hindu Marriage Act
cruelty
family court procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:30191
                                               -1-
                                                                   943-wp-9336-2025

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 9336 OF 2025

                                 AMOL JAGANNATH GAIKWAD
                                          VERSUS
                                   SONALI AMOL GAIKWAD

                                              ......
              Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Shubhangi D. More
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh C. Sisodiya
                                              ...…

                                           CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 22nd JULY, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          Present petitioner takes exception to order dated

              21.03.2025 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court, Ahmednagar

              in Petition No. A-62/2022.


              2.          The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section

              13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against

              respondent. The respondent filed written statement wherein she

              had made counter-allegations against petitioner, stating that

              because of the behaviour of petitioner, she was required to stay

              away. Apparently, respondent tried to set up her defence counter

              to the claim in petition.


              3.          At this stage, petitioner filed an application below

              Exhibit-27 seeking amendment in plaint and sought to insert

              paragraph No.17(A), as stated in application.
                                 -2-
                                                        943-wp-9336-2025



4.          Perusal of proposed paragraph No.17(A) shows that

petitioner wants to incorporate the contention that stipulations

made in written statement by respondent are false and would

constitute cruelty against him. The Trial Court refused to grant

permission to amend plaint for the reason that amendment sought

is not necessary to adjudicate controversy between the parties.

The case of petitioner for a decree of divorce is based on the events

which gave rise to cause of action for filing petition. The proposed

amendment is based on averments in          written statement and

cannot form the basis of pleadings in claim petition.


5.          This Court finds that proposed amendment would not be

necessary to decide the real controversy between parties. Needless

to state here that petitioner would be at liberty to controvert

stipulations in written statement during the course of cross-

examination, or he can rebut the same during the course of his own

evidence at the trial.


6.          In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to

entertain writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.



                                       (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                JUDGE
Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…