- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO.8146 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: INDRANEEL BOMMISETTY S/O. SRI RAMALINGESWARA RAO BOMMISETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT VILLA NO.682 FERNS PARADISE, DODANNAKUNDI BENGALURU-560 048 …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM G., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MEGHAVARSHINI MOHANDAS W/O. SRI INDRANEEL BOMMISETTY D/O. SRI H. P. MOHANDAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. B-414, ADMIRALATY AVENUE APPAREDDYPALYA, 6TH MAIN 13TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PRATHIMA S. K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT IN MC NO. 2941/2018 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC ON IA 16. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 in IA No.16 of MC No.2941/2018. The said order reads as follows: "The proposed amendment will not change the nature of proceedings. The respondent came up with the proposed amendment to the counter claim seeking for the dissolution of their marriage giving reasons in his affidavit filed in support of IA No.16. The respondent claims that during the pendency of the proceedings she realized that her futile efforts for the counter claim of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Hence, prays for permission to carryout amendment. The case is still pending in the stage of evidence of respondent. To avoid protraction of proceedings and multiplicity of proceedings, IA No.16 is allowed and respondent is permitted to carryout amendment to the statement of objections of respondent and counter claim as proposed in IA No.16." - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/husband filed this application and stated that he married respondent under Special Marriage Act on 07.11.2016 and he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under the said Act in MC No.2941/2018 and it is pending for consideration. 3. Respondent/wife filed counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights in Annexure-C. She also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC (IA No.16) to delete the averments made by her in paragraph Nos.73 to 76 and also sought for deleting the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights and to substitute the same with a decree for divorce by alleging cruelty and desertion. The said application is enclosed under Annexure-D. Respondent/wife cannot be permitted to withdraw the admissions made by her in the statement of objections and it would result in injustice to the petitioner and change the case completely and it amounts to introducing new cause of action. The petitioner also filed - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 written arguments. The evidence of petitioner is already completed and is coming up for respondent's evidence. Respondent filed her affidavit of evidence. At this stage, she filed an application seeking amendment and it is impermissible. They relied upon citation of Supreme Court of India reported in MANU/SC/4619/2006 in the case of Rohith Sing vs. State of Bihar in which it is stated as follows: "A counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so-called counter- claim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial Court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction." 4. He further relied upon the citation reported in MANU/SC/0465/2020 in the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monica Pandit Mahale and others in which it is stated as follows: "d. The Court should be satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment." The respondent has not raised objection before commencement of the trial and thus it is to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner further relied upon the citation reported in MANU/SC/0394/2013 in the case of Malla Reddy vs. Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and others in which in para 17 it is held as follows: "Defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made out in the written statement and to substitute and in tiredly different new case and that if such amendments are allowed the plaintiffs will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants, it was further held that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, the amendment of such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and asuch withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff which would cause him every triple prejudice, it is further held that though the defendant has a right to take an alternative plea in defence by way of amendment, it would be subject to the qualification that: a) the proposed amendment should not result in injustice to the other side. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 b) Any admission made in favour of plaintiff should not be withdrawn. c) Inconsistent and contradictory allegations which negate admitted facts should not be raised. The proposed amendment would have the effect of taking away and withdrawing the admissions made by the respondent and introducing a fresh cause of action and changing the cause of action altogether." 6. Respondent is seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. The petitioner left matrimonial home in or about November 2017 and the said application is filed on 11.06.2018. Statement of objections filed on 06.08.2019. In view of the amendment, it cannot be said that petitioner deserted respondent for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately before presenting the petition and the Family Court lost sight of the same. Petitioner further submits that through proposed amendment, respondent is seeking decree of partition of the property by metes and bounds. He further stated that petitioner has also contributed funds for acquiring the property and the respondent does not claim specific share - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 in the property. Therefore, the said prayer is vague and is to be set aside. 7. MC No.2941/2018 is filed by the husband for divorce. Statement of objections and also counter claim is filed by wife in which she sought for decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 06.08.2019. The evidence of petitioner herein is completed and it is coming up for respondent/wife's evidence and at this juncture, she filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment in which she requested the Court to delete certain paragraphs and to add certain paragraphs from 72A to 72F and also requested to delete the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and to add the relief of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and also she sought for decree for partition of the property. The said application is filed on 21.06.2024 after 5 years. She was contesting the proceedings and appearing before the Court and also engaged a counsel. In a decree of divorce she sought for restitution of conjugal rights. But - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 she kept quiet for 5 years during the pendency of the proceedings and now came up with this application for converting the same into a decree of divorce and she requested the Court to delete certain paragraphs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she filed an application to delete paragraphs Nos.73 to 76 and if the said paragraphs are deleted it causes prejudice to him. She also requested to insert certain paragraphs i.e., 72A to 72F in which she sought for partition of the properties by furnishing certain details. Amendment application is to be filed prior to the commencement of the trial so that the Court can frame issues basing on the pleadings of both sides and evidence also can be let in by both sides to prove the said contentions. In this case the trial was commenced long back and the evidence of petitioner is already completed. She also filed an affidavit. Why respondent kept quiet for a period of 5 years without asking for the relief of divorce, is not explained. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he filed divorce application on the ground of cruelty and desertion. If this amendment is accepted, he cannot get the benefit of the fact that she deserted him 2 years prior to the filing of the petition and moreover, she asked for partition and it amounts to introducing new facts and changes the nature of the proceedings. She has not stated anything to show that inspite due diligence, she could not file the amendment application prior to the commencement of the trial. No doubt, ultimately she is also asking for divorce instead of restitution of conjugal rights. That doesn't mean that she is entitled for the amendments as sought for by her. The petitioner further stated that at the time of purchasing of suit schedule property, the total sale consideration was Rs.1.25 crores, out of which petitioner contributed Rs.30 lakhs and balance was financed by the bank under joint loan. It is also stated that petitioner/husband has left the house but respondent was residing in the said house from - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010184142025 NC: 2026:KHC:38046 WP No. 8146 of 2025 November 2017 to June 2024 for a period of 6 years 8 months when it fetches rent of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Even if the petitioner's share of rent is taken at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-, respondent has to pay Rs.80,00,000/- for 80 months. 10. Family Court without considering all these aspects allowed the amendment application in a cryptic docket order without assigning any reasons. Hence, the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in IA No.16 in MC No.2941/2018 is devoid of merits and is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. 11. Amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent/wife is not maintainable. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56