1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4106 of 2010 Kavita Krishnamurthy ... Petitioner versus K.N.Krishnamurthy ... Respondent ... Mr. S.I.Jaykar for the petitioner. Mr.K.N.Krishnamurthy respondent in person. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 7th July 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Respondent appears in person and waives service. 2. Heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15 March 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bandra rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment. 4. The respondent and the petitioner are man and wife. Petitioner filed the petition for dissolution of marriage interalia on the ground of cruelty. After the issues were framed but before the commencement of 2 the trial, petitioner applied for amendment of the petition seeking to add details of the cruelty and seeking to narrate the incidences of cruelty. The respondent resisted the application. The Family Court dismissed the application. That order is impugned in this petition. 5. The Family Court has rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly, it is held that though the petitioner has stated in the application that application relates to the subsequent events, most of the events sought to be added by the amendment had taken place prior to the filing of the petition. Secondly, it is held that since the amendment application has been made after a long delay and incidences sought to be mentioned later were quite old. Consequently it held that the incidences were sought to be added as an after-thought. 5. In paragraph no.3 of the application for amendment, petitioner has given reasons why the application for amendment was not made earlier. She has stated that at the time of drafting of the petition, she was under tremendous stress and trauma and could not recollect and inform to the advocate each and every incident of cruelty. She has further stated that she was unaware that all the incidences were required to be mentioned at the time of the filing of the petition itself. She pleaded inadvertence also as one of the grounds for amendment. Though the petitioner has stated in the application that some of the incidences have taken place after the filing of the petition, it was never her case in the application that all incidences of cruelty had taken place after the filing of the petition and/or were in the nature of subsequent events. An amendment need not be restricted only to the subsequent events. An amendment can be allowed even in respect of pre-petition 3 events provided that there is no other reason for rejecting the amendment. 6. From the observation of the learned Judge “therefore there is a room to doubt that these incidents are sought to be introduced as an after-thought” it appears that the learned Judge has pre-judged the issue. Mere pleading is not proof of the incidents pleaded. Petitioner would be required to adduce adequate proof in support of her case about the happening of the alleged incidents. It is only after the entire evidence is adduced that the learned Judge would be required to consider the truth, correctness or otherwise of the incidents alleged by the petitioner. At the stage of pleadings, the learned Judge should not have foreclosed the amendment of the pleadings on the ground that since the incidents were old, they could be an after-thought. Any conclusion about truth or otherwise can be reached by the court only after the trial. 7. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and petitioner's application for amendment is allowed. Amendment shall be carried out by the petitioner within two weeks of the writ reaching the trial court. Needless to say that the respondent shall be given an opportunity to file response/reply to the amended pleadings. 8. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)