(1) WP. 1684.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1684 OF 2010 Sonali W/o Chetan Wagh .. PETITIONER VERSUS Chetan S/o Madhavrao Wagh .. RESPONDENT Mrs. S.D. Tambat (Dhumal), Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Khandagale, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioner is wife of the respondent. The respondent filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide case A-285/2009 in the Family Court at Aurnagabad. The petitioner filed her written statement wherein she asserted that the respondent (husband) subjected her to cruelty on various occasions. In short, her contention before the Family Court is that due to cruel behaviour of the respondent and particularly (2) WP. 1684.2010 due to the fact that her life is endangered in his company, she did not want to join his company. 2. The petitioner filed amendment application (Exh.10) seeking introduction of various allegations regarding the cruelty. The application is rejected by learned Judge of the Family Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the application for amendment, I am satisfied that the amendment sought by the petitioner is not necessary and require to be allowed. The law of pleadings has to be well understood. It may be emphasized that pleadings are required to be put forth with specification and in respect of the facts which are necessary for the purpose of determination of the issues involved in the litigation. In the present case, the amendment sought by the petitioner is for the purpose of giving details of the same facts which she has pleaded. The perusal of her application shows that general averments have been made as (3) WP. 1684.2010 regards the nature of instances about the cruelty. The evidence which is required to be given need not be pleaded. In my opinion, the petitioner is at liberty to prove the facts which are stated in the amendment application, inasmuch as they are the instances of the cruelty on basis of which she asserted that she did not wish to join company of the respondent. Rejection of the application cannot be therefore faulted with. Petition disposed of. 4. Authenticated copy of this order may be issued under the signature of the Court Sheristedar as requested by the learned counsel. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp