- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27933 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SHRUTHI LAKSHMI M.K. W/O DR. GANESH T. BHAT AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT 'AASARE', HARADI, PUTTUR - 574 201 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND/GUARDIAN SMT. USHA DEVI K.N. W/O M. KESHAVA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 'AASARE' HARADI, PUTTUR - 574 201 2. SMT. USHA DEVI K.N., W/O M. KESHAVA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 'AASARE', HARADI, PUTTUR - 574 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 AND: DR. GANESH T. BHAT S/O LATE TULASIDAS BHAT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 'GANESH PRASAD' NEAR URVA MARKET MANGALURU - 575 006 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.C.NO.577/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 (ANNEXURE -N) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU ON I.A.NO.25 IN M.C.NO.577/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.25 IN M.C.NO.577/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XXV in M.C.No.577/2021 dated 29.08.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected the application filed by the wife with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The husband had filed M.C.No.577/2021 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In that, the wife had filed the written statement and also filed counter claim seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and sought for alimony. After the trial has commenced, I.A.No.XXV is filed by the wife seeking to amend the objection to the main petition and to add a prayer directing the husband to return all the gold ornaments weighing 736 grams, silver plates, silver vessel, silver vermilion box, silver lamp, expensive dress materials, books which are in the custody of the husband in his house. The said application came to be dismissed by order impugned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 4. While dismissing the application, the Family Court had observed that the wife has failed to make out that in spite of due diligence, she could not seek amendment of the counter claim before commencement of the trial. If the application is allowed at this stage of the proceeding, definitely it will cause prejudice to the husband. Secondly, it is going to cause inordinate delay in the disposal of the case. The contention of the wife that she had noticed omission to seek relief to return valuable gold ornaments and silver articles after completion of cross examination of RW.1 is untenable and unbelievable and rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that if there is no prayer from the side of the wife, it would have an impact on the case of the wife. Hence, she has sought for this relief. By allowing this relief, no prejudice would be caused to the husband and the Family Court without considering all these and on technicalities, had rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that in his cross-examination, the husband had stated that he is ready to return the things that are belonging to the wife to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 her. Why this particular amendment is not sought before the trial is not explained by the wife and the Family Court had rightly rejected the application observing that the wife has failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, it could not be done at an earliest point of time. It is submitted that earlier, an amendment application is filed seeking amendment of the prayer and the same was allowed and this is the second round where an amendment of the prayer is sought again. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the burden lies on the party to prove that in spite of due diligence, the party could not plead the same at an earliest point of time i.e., before commencement of the trial. In this case, there is no pleading with regard to these gold ornaments and other articles. The wife wants to amend the prayer. There should be some nexus between the prayer and the pleadings and without the pleading, there cannot be any prayer. In this application seeking amendment of the prayer, the wife has not sought for amendment of pleadings, but only the prayer. The Family Court had rightly held that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38923 WP No. 27933 of 2025 wife had failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, this relief could not be sought at an earliest point of time and that too in the light of the fact that already an amendment of prayer is sought earlier and allowed. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. However, in the facts and circumstances, to the extent of the cost of Rs.2,000/- that is imposed by the Family Court, the order is set aside. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The cost of Rs.2,000/- that is imposed by the Family Court, is set aside. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30