1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.741 of 2025 Date of Decision : 05.01.2026 Rajesh Gupta …… Petitioner Versus Rekha ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.10.2025, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner/respondent before the Trial Court, seeking amendment to the reply filed, has been rejected. 2. A petition bearing No.162/3 of 2014 was filed by the present respondent/complainant before the Trial Court in the year, 2014. The same was decided on 18.09.2021, whereby monthly maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- per month for residence as also compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-on account of mental torture has been granted in favour of the present respondent/complainant. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner/respondent before the First Appellate Court. The same was instituted on 18.10.2021 and decided on 04.07.2025. Vide impugned judgment passed in the said appeal, order dated 18.09.2021 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence on the points framed in the order dated 18.09.2021. 4. The points which arose for consideration before the Trial Court, in the case at hand, are being reproduced here-in-below:- “7. …. … … (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance, provision for residence and protection from the respondent as alleged and if so, to what extent? OPP (2) Whether there doesn’t exist any kind of relationship between the parties, as alleged? OPR” 5. The reply, which is now sought to be amended has been placed on record at Page-58 of the paper book. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that there is denial of any relationship inter se the present petitioner/respondent and the present respondent/complainant. It is categorically denied that no marriage took place. One Smt. Veena is stated to be the wife of the present petitioner/respondent. Out of the wedlock with Smt. Veena, a child named Turvi Gupta is stated to have been born. In the application filed for amendment of the reply, it has been categorically asserted that the amendment now sought to be made are purely explanatory and clarificatory in nature. 3 6. A perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code makes it amply clearly that amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties needs to be allowed. Other than the aforesaid, in terms of Order 6 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, only a statement in a concise form of material facts needs to be pleaded by the parties. The evidence by which they are to be proved are not required. 7. The case, in the case at hand, as has been pointed out (supra) was filed way back in the year, 2014. The matter has been remanded back to the Trial Court permitting the parties to lead evidence on the points framed which have been stated supra. The amendment sought pertain to judgment passed by the appropriate Court in FIR No.498-A, Section 323 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The same is per se admissible. Insofar as pleadings with respect to marriage with Smt. Veena is concerned, the same can be proved by leading evidence. In fact, it has been pointed out in the reply that out of the marriage with Smt. Veena, one daughter named Turvi Gupta has been born. The factum of marriage inter se the parties needs to be proved by one who alleges. In the case at hand, burden in this respect lies upon the respondent/complainant. The onus would shift once the burden is discharged. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to permit the amendment in the reply as is being sought. The petition, being devoid of 4 merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 5, 2026 (KS) Judge