1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1995 of 2008 Swati Ninad Jadhav Petitioner Vs. Ninand Jadhav Respondent Ms.Kokila Kalra for petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Naik i/b. Mr.N.V.Vechalekar & Co. for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 16, 2008 P.C. . Heard Ms.Kalra, the learned counsel for the petitioner - wife who is aggrieved by the order dated 23/1/2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at Pune thereby allowing the application at Exhibit 54 for amendment. . The respondent-husband has filed P.A.No.803 of 2005 seeking divorce and in the said petition the application at Exhibit 54 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and it has been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application was filed belatedly and it ought not to have been allowed. 2 . Admittedly the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner - husband was on record and his cross-examination had not commenced when this application at Exhibit 54 was presented before the Family Court. Having regards to the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, I do not find any procedural defect committed by the Family Court in passing the impugned order and, therefore, there is no reason to cause interference in the said order under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. . Petition is rejected summarily and the proceedings in P.A.No.803 of 2005 are directed to be expedited. . Writ to go to the Family Court forthwith. (B.H.MARL