1 2025:CGHC:5268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1103 of 2024  Rakesh Pataila S/o R.D. Pataila Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Tilly- 184, Block-A, Talpuri, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Melif Agare W/o Rakesh Pataila Aged About 31 Years D/o Demon Prasad Agare, Resident Of Village Banarsi, Tahsil Arang, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29/01/2025 Heard on admission. 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No. A-959/2022 whereby the application moved by petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.04.2021. It is pleaded in the application that the respondent-wife concealed her earlier affairs. It is further pleaded that she continued her studies of law and used to visit frequently and when the petitioner stopped her, she used to quarrel. It is also pleaded that a threat was also given by the respondent-wife to implead the petitioner’s Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.01.31 11:14:05 +0530 2 family in a false case under Section 498-A of IPC and she compelled her mother-in-law to transfer her pension into the respondent’s bank account, thus, a suit was filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty extended by the respondent-wife. 3) During the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved by the petitioner wherein an amendment was proposed to the effect that the marriage was solemnized on 06.04.2021 and the respondent left the matrimonial house on 24.02.2022. It is further stated that she is still staying separately and two years have passed, therefore the marriage may be dissolved according to Section 13(1)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A reply was filed by the respondent denying the averments made in the application. 4) Heard. 5) A perusal of the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC would show that the application was an afterthought. The ground which has been raised in the application for amendment was not available to the petitioner-husband at the time of filing the suit for dissolution of marriage; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court rightly rejected the application. 6) Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2024. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya