APHC010666702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3598 of 2025 Between: Katukuri Bindu Swetha and another ...Petitioners and Katukuri Thej Swaroop alias Katuturi Teja Swaroop ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: 1. O. Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondent: Nil The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.06.2025 dismissing I.A.No.483 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the petitioners under Section 10(3) of Family Court‟s Act, 1984 to permit the petitioners to make the following amendments: “1. Delete the words at para No.3 of the main petition in F.C.O.P.No.40/2023 “K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu” and Insert the word “Thirumala” and, later on get together at KTR Function Hall, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu. 2. Delete the words “November, 2021” and Insert the figures “02-06-2019” 3. Add para No.5(a) to be added after para No.5 before para No.6. 5(a) It is humbly submitted that the 1st petitioner was not a employee at the time of filing the above F.C.O.P.No.40/2023 before this Hon‟ble (sic „Hon‟ble Court‟) and before this said petition, she worked as Software employee and later on resigned for the said job due to acute back pain and knee pain and therefore the petitioner is (sic „has‟) no source of independent income to maintain herself and her minor son i.e., 2nd petitioner as stated earlier in the main petition.” 2. The petitioners filed F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2023 against the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioners originally pleaded that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was performed at K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty, but now seeks to amend the same as the 3 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2025 place of marriage is at Thirumala, whereas get together was held at K.T.R. Function Hall, Gooty. Similarly, the petitioners pleaded at para No.4 of the petition that in the month of November, 2021, the respondent had driven out the petitioners from his house, whereas now, the petitioners seek substitution of the date „02.06.2019‟ for „November, 2021‟. Further, the petitioners sought addition of para No.5(a) noted above regarding status of the income of the petitioner No.1 as on the date of filing of the impugned petition. The petitioners contended that these amendments are required as the proposed amendments Nos.1 and 2 were not originally pleaded due to oversight. 3. No counter has been filed to the petition. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition after hearing both the parties, observing as follows: “Heard both sides. The present petition is filed at the stage of enquiry. It is her duty to mention all the pleadings which are essential. The petitioner shall not be permitted to amend the petition at the stage of enquiry. Whether she is doing job or not are within her personal knowledge. She can not be permitted to amend the petition by adding that she is not doing any job at the time of filing of F.C.O.P. The petition is coming for enquiry since 1 ½ year. Without adducing any evidence she has been dragging the case and filed this petition at belated stage. The petition is filed belated stage, hence not maintainable. In view of above discussion, there are no grounds to allow the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed contending that the amendments can be permitted to be made to correct the typographical mistakes and clarify the material facts at any stage, 4 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2025 provided they don‟t change nature of the case as held by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others 1 and that the amendments are necessary for effective adjudication of the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioners filed supporting document of marriage invitation card for seeking amendment regarding the place of marriage, yet the trial Court failed to consider the same. It is also contended that unless amendments are carried out, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioners who include a minor, but no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by allowing the proposed amendments. 5. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, there has been no appearance. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by T.Priyanka, learned counsel, submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition though the enquiry has not yet commenced and that the respondent has opportunity of answering the amended pleadings. She further submitted that the amendments sought before commencement of enquiry shall be liberally allowed and moreover the proposed amendment with regard to the place of marriage is supported by an undisputed document as well, and that the respondent had not even denied the facts proposed in the amendments. 7. Since the amendments proposed are sought before the enquiry is commenced, a liberal approach should be made to permit such amendments when it would not cause prejudice to the respondent who has an opportunity to answer and they do not materially alter the nature of the case or the relief. 1 2024 (6) ALD 206 5 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2025 8. In this case, the amendments, both Nos.1 and 2, can be duly answered by filing additional counter, if the facts proposed to be amended are incorrect and to that extent no prejudice would be caused as the same needs to be proved during enquiry. Insofar as proposed amendment No.3 is concerned, it is also an assertion of fact relating to her income and the same can also be refuted by the respondent by filing additional counter and the petitioners need to prove the pleadings. These proposed amendments would not alter the nature of the case or the relief or they would cause prejudice to the respondent for the reasons noted above. As such, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition, but the petition was dismissed for no valid reason and merely on the ground that there was delay in filing the petition. The observation that the petition was filed at belated stage to drag on the case has no substance. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the petition. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 16.06.2025 dismissing I.A.No.483 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court- cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, and the petition therein is allowed. No order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 10.02.2026 NSM 6 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2025 115 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3598 of 2025 Date: 10.02.2026. NSM