THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3691 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.07.2010, in I.A.No.43 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, seeking amendment of the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed O.P.No.42 of 2007 against the petitioner for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Petitioner herein filed counter contesting the O.P. The enquiry in the O.P. has commenced. According to the respondent-husband, during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner herein, he came to know that the petitioner was previously married to one Siva Kumar Reddy and the said marriage is dissolved by decree of divorce. Respondent alleges that till such time the petitioner herein revealed the said fact he was not aware of it as the earlier marriage and dissolution of the same by decree of divorce were not brought to his notice at any time. Therefore, I.A.No.43 of 2010, is filed seeking to amend the petition by adding paragraph No.6 (a) to the effect that the petitioner herein married him for the second time without disclosing the factum of the earlier marriage and the divorce, which also amounts to cruelty. Petitioner herein filed a counter in I.A.No.43 of 2010 opposing the application. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application and permitted the proposed amendment. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner-wife. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the respondent cannot be permitted to amend the petition at this stage after commencement of the enquiry, inasmuch as the respondent was aware of the factum of the earlier marriage and the divorce and in spite of the said knowledge he has not pleaded the same in the petition and now after commencement of enquiry, the proposed amendment is impermissible. In that connection, he relied upon a decision reported in REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS v NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS AND OTHERS[1], wherein the apex Court laid down certain guidelines while dealing with an application for amendment as follows: “67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application”. 5. None of the above facts leading to rejection of application for amendment exists in the present case. According to the respondent, petitioner revealed in her cross-examination that he was not aware of the earlier marriage with Siva Kumar Reddy and dissolution of the same by a decree of divorce. Petitioner contends that the respondent was already aware of the earlier marriage of the petitioner, but in spite of having knowledge he has not pleaded the same in the divorce petition. There is absolutely no material placed on record to show that the respondent had prior knowledge of the earlier marriage of the petitioner with Siva Kumar Reddy and dissolution of the same by decree of divorce. In the absence of any such material placed, the plea of the respondent that he came to know of the said earlier marriage only during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner remains unsubstantiated. It cannot therefore be said that the respondent has not exercised due diligence and therefore the present application for amendment of the petition is not maintainable by virtue of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 6. It is to be noted that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the proceeding nor alter the cause of action. The O.P. is filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Respondent seeks to amend the petition by adding the plea pertaining to the earlier marriage of the petitioner and its divorce by way of elaboration of the ground of cruelty by stating that the petitioner entering into second marriage with the respondent, suppressing the factum of the earlier marriage and dissolution thereof also amounts to cruelty. The question as to whether or not the respondent was aware of the earlier marriage of the petitioner and its dissolution and whether or not there has been any suppression of information about the said earlier marriage while entering into the second marriage with the respondent and whether or not such non- disclosure, if any, would amount to cruelty are all matters to be considered by the Family Court on evidence that may be adduced by both sides during the course of enquiry. Admittedly, petitioner was earlier married to Siva Kumar Reddy and the said marriage ended in divorce. By way of the proposed amendment, respondent merely seeks to bring the said fact on record. In fact, the same has already come in the evidence of the petitioner herein. Hence, petitioner cannot complain of any prejudice to her defence in the O.P. if the proposed amendment of the petition is permitted. As the proposed amendment does not in any way cause any prejudice to the petitioner and does not also alter the nature or character of the proceedings and in fact is in the nature of amplifying the ground of cruelty, which is already raised by the respondent in the divorce O.P., it is considered that the proposed amendment is permissible. The impugned order, allowing the application, does not therefore call for any interference. Petitioner is at liberty to file additional counter in the main O.P. after the O.P. is amended. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011. Tsy [1] (2009) 15 SCR 103