1 2025:CGHC:584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1164 of 2024  Dinesh Madhwani S/o Kishanchand Madhwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Katiyapara, Near Sheetla Mandir, Bilaspur, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. (Defendant) ... Petitioner versus  Ku. Soumya Madhwani D/o Dinesh Madhwani Aged About 6 Years Minor Through- Natural Guardian Mother Anju Madhwani, R/o Ward No. 12, Vikas Nagar Chakarbhatha, Bilaspur, Police Station Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, C.G. (Plaintiff) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. G.L. Uike, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 06/01/2025 1) The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred this petition against the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2022 dated 22.10.2024 whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that the respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of the petitioner and Smt. Anju Madhwani and was born on 07.03.2016. The plaintiff filed a civil suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming therein maintenance on 31.12.2021. The defendant (petitioner) filed a written statement on 2 05.08.2023. In between, the plaintiff filed affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC of three witnesses and before cross-examination of these witnesses, the defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 16.07.2024 and denied paternity. It is also stated that a loan was taken by the mother of the plaintiff from the defendant and when he demanded the loan amount back, a false case was filed. Learned Family Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 rejected the application on the ground that the application for amendment has been moved at a belated stage. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit and the amendment is necessary for just adjudication of the case and evidence has not yet started. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material available on the record. 5) Plaintiff/respondent has claimed herself to be the daughter of the petitioner and has claimed maintenance. Undisputedly, she was born on 07.03.2016 and is aged about 8 years. The plaint was filed on 31.12.2021 and the Written Statement was filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2023. The written statement shows that there is no averment with regard to the paternity of the plaintiff and for the first time, after one year of filing of written statement, the petitioner has filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC taking the plea of paternity of the plaintiff. He stated in the application that there was a loan transaction between the petitioner and the mother of the plaintiff. The statement made in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 was 3 within the knowledge of the petitioner since inception but it took him more than three years to file the application for amendment which appears to be an afterthought. Further, witnesses of the plaintiff have filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6) Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya