THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.231 of 2010 Date:26.02.2010 Between: Palamuru @ Chinnapaka Usharani, Sriramapally village, Nalgonda District. Petitioners. And Chinnapaka Bikshapathi, Rmannapet village and Mandal, Nalgonda District and another. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.231 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.1.2003 passed in I.A.No.2754 of 2001 in O.P.No.1351 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.1.2010. The 1st respondent received notice and entered appearance though a counsel. Notice to the 2nd respondent stated to be not necessary. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds for filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at a belated stage. A further submission has been made that the petitioner having known of the extra marital life of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent, three years prior to the filing of the O.P., did not chose to mention the same in O.P and in which case, he cannot be permitted to plead the said fact by way of amendment. I have gone though the proposed amendment, which reads as hereunder:- “The respondent has developed illegal relationship with 2nd respondent about three years back, prior to the filing of this case and since then both the respondents having sexual relationship. The petitioner herein sensed the illegal relationship of his wife with the 2nd respondent and prepared to caught both the respondents red-handed on 09-09-2000 at about 12 noon, the respondents have been caught red handed while committing adultery in the closed room of one church by name “Hermon Church”, situated in Ramannapet before the witnesses. The petitioner also recovered one Xerox copy of a love letter, which has been written by the 1st respondent to 2nd respondent, from one Pastor Pallapuralla Joseph, who is none other than the brother-in-law of 2nd respondent. The original lover letter has been recovered by the S.I of Police, Rammannapet from the Pastor Joseph on 13-09-2000 before the witness, upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the Ramannapet Police on 13-09-2000, requesting the police to take necessary legal action against the 2nd respondent for committing the offence of Adultery. The Police have not taken any action till the private complaint filed by the petitioner in the court of J.F.C.M., Ramannapet. The Hon’ble J.F.C.M., referred the said complaint to the Ramannapet Police, directing them to Register a case, investigate the matter and report to the Court, on 23-04- 2001 the Police registered a case Vide Crime No.26/2001, dated 23-4-2001 against 2nd respondent U/s.497 of I.P.C and took up investigation and the investigation is on. The 1st respondent herself has broken the marital life, which was existing between herself and petitioner. The respondent No.1 has withdrawn from the society and living apart with her mother without children from the date of offence i.e., 09-09- 2000, the respondents are liable to answer.” The petitioner filed O.P No.1351 of 2000 on 4.11.2000. Subsequently, he filed a petition seeking amendment of the petition by way of adding Para No.4 in June 2001. It is well settled that the merit of the amendment cannot be gone into at the time of considering the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It can only consider whether such an amendment should be necessary for decision of real controversy between the parties to the proceeding. The 1st respondent herein filed O.P.No.1351 of 2000 for divorce on the ground of adultery. The plea of the adultery has been taken as one of the grounds for dissolution of the marriage. The amendment is only by way of elaboration of the instances, which constitute adultery. A further fact mentioned in the amendment is with regard to the registration of the Crime No.26/2001. The registration of the crime is subsequent to the filing of the O.P. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower Court in allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision fails and it is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.2.2010 mrb