CRP 423/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr RP Sarmah, learned senior counsel for petitioner, as well as Ms A. Begum, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party. Petitioner husband by the present petition has challenged the order date d 29.8.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati in Cas e No.FC(C) 53 of 2007 allowing the amendment of the prayer in the plaint, filed in the said proceedings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for directing the opposite pa rty to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner husband on the grou nd that since the trial commenced, the court cannot exercise the jurisdiction un der Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and as such, the order granting the prayer for amendment needs to be interfered with. The contention of the opposite party, on the other hand, is that the cou rt even after commencement of trial can grant the prayer for amendment of the pl eadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. It has further been submitted that since t he court has the power to grant permanent alimony u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage A ct, 1955, even after disposal of the divorce proceeding initiated by the opposit e party, the amendment as allowed in respect of the prayer for grant of compensa tion will not prejudicially affect the interest of the present petitioner husban d. It appears from the impugned order dated 29.8.2009 that the amendment so ught for was in respect of granting compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs to th e opposite party. The said order has been passed for ends of justice. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that any court exe rcising jurisdiction under the said Act may, at the time of passing any decree o r at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by e ither the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent sha ll pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applica nt as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and o ther circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any suc h payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. The said provision, therefore, amply makes it clear that any court exerc ising jurisdiction under the said Act, at any time or subsequent to passing of d ecree can entertain an application for permanent alimony and maintenance. The le arned court below by allowing amendment has allowed the present opposite party t o pray for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, which is in conformity with t he provisions of Section 25 of the Act. In view of the above, the order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the learned Pr incipal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati in Case No.FC(C) 53 of 2007 does not req uire any interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the C onstitution of India. Mr Sarmah, learned senior counsel, at this stage, has submitted that sin ce no objection against the prayer for grant of compensation in terms of the ame nded plaint has been filed, the petitioner may be allowed some more time to file the same. Prayer is allowed. Petitioner may file objection against the prayer for grant of compensation within 2 weeks from today. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observat ion. No costs.