2026:UHC:4561 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1718/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate with Mr. Tilak Ram Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is challenging order dated 28.02.2026 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Original Suit No. 244 of 2025. By the said order, respondent’s application seeking leave to amend the written statement was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that leave to amend ought not to have been granted to respondent, as trial commenced long back and matter is now pending for evidence. 4. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Leave to amend the pleadings is granted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC reads as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 2026:UHC:4561 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a liberal approach should be followed while considering application seeking leave to amend the pleadings. 7. In the present case, petitioner alleged in the plaint that his signature on the application for registration of marriage was obtained under duress. It was further alleged by petitioner that such application was moved without there being any marriage solemnised between the parties. 8. Respondent-wife sought leave to amend for adding paragraph nos. 14(ka) and 14(kha) in her written statement. In these two paragraphs, respondent stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 15.07.2016 in a Temple at Mathura (State of Uttar Pradesh), which was attended by number of relatives and family friends of the petitioner. Thus the amendment sought is clarificatory in nature and do not change the nature of proceedings. 9. Thus there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.06.2026 Mahinder/