1 W.P.No.7667/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7667 OF 2011. Manohar S/o Abba Gade, Age 42 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Sirasdevi, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus Sunita W/o Manohar Gade, Age 33 years, Occ.Household, R/o Sirasdevi, Tal.Georao, Dist.Beed. ... Respondent. ... Mr.R.B.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.Pardeshi, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.7667/11 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent had filed suit for maintenance. The petitioner has filed his Written Statement. Thereafter the issues were framed and the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the Written Statement. Vide the amendment, the petitioner sought to incorporate the pleadings about earlier compromise arrived at and giving Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as lumpsum maintenance and one plot. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the application on the ground that the Court has rightly considered the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The said application is filed after commencement of the trial and no due diligence is shown. The learned counsel further contends that the said amendment is not relevant for the adjudication of the dispute 3 W.P.No.7667/11 5. The amendment of the Written Statement has to be more liberally construed than that of the plaint as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of "Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another" reported (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498. The examination-in-chief is yet to be led. The plaintiff will have an opportunity to adduce evidence. In such circumstances, there was no impediment to allow the amendment. The suit is for claiming maintenance and the amendment was related to the same. However, at the same time, the petitioner also deserves to be mulct with cost. 6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application Exh.42 is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the Respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 7. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to 4 W.P.No.7667/11 costs of the present petition. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp766711