-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. 2026:BHC-AUG:30191 -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