IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1267 of 2006 Smt.Shubhangi Chandrakant Gulwani .. Petitioner V/s Chandrakant Venkatesh Gulwani ... Respondent Smt.Sujata S. Mogre for Petitioner CORAM:S.R.SATHE,J. DATED:29th Jan. 2007 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. 2. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 3. As per order passed by this Court on 11-9-2006 (Coram:D.B.Bhosale,J) the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. Hence Rule, rule returnable forthwith. 4. The Petitioner original opponent-wife in HM Petition NO.171 of 2002 has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge whereby the application for amendment to written statement filed by the petitioner was rejected. 5. At the outset it must be mentioned that by virtue of the amendment application the petitioner wife had prayed to add clauses 10(A), 10(B), 10(C) and 10(D) in her written statement. The learned trial Judge has rejected the amendment in respect of Clauses 10(A), 10(B) and 10(C) and rightly allowed the wife to carry out the amendment in respect of clause 10(D). 6. The petition was filed by husband against the present petitioner-wife seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Petitioner wife filed her written statement on 4-3-2003 and opposed the petition. It is very clear that even in the said Say she had contended that applicant husband was not treating her well and was addicted to drinking liquor and used to assault her and all along causing mental and physical cruelty to her. So, under such circumstances by the proposed amendment suggested in 10)A) the wife is only giving details about the alleged ill-treatment given to her. So, it cannot be said that she is making any new or inconsistent case. So, amendment to that effect ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Judge taking into consideration the fact that the said amendment would help the court to resolve the dispute between parties correctly and justly. 7. So far as the amendment proposed in paras 10(B) and 10(C) are concerned, the defendant had not contended the initially that the applicant’s sister and sister’s husband etc. abused her and assaulted her. There is also no justifiable reason given by her for not making these contentions in her original written statement. So, the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the amendment in respect of Clauses 10(B) and 10(C). 8. Hence the petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the trial Judge rejecting the petitioner’s amendment in respect of para 10(A) is set aside. The Petitioner wife is allowed to carry out the amendment as suggested in para 10(A) within one month from today. After the said amendment the court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 9. Petition disposed of in the above terms. (S.R.SATHE,J)