IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRiMINAL PETITON No.10143/2011 BETWEEN: Shri Dymappa, S/o Gangavva Pujar, Age: 63 years, 0cc: Retired Government Servant. Rio Gulganjikoppa, Dharwad. Petitioner (By Shri A. G. Wajape, Advocate) AND: Smt Nilavva alleged W/o Dymappa Pujar, Age 51 years, 0cc: Household work, Rio Karajagi, Tq & Dist: Haven. Now at C/o V. F. Pujar, H. C. Police Head Quarters, Dharwad. . Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set-aside the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Crl.Rev.P.No.2 19/2008 dated 20.12.2010, against the petitioner. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is said to be the husband of the respondent which the petitioner has denied. The respondent has sought for maintenance. The respondent had tendered her evidence and the petitioner had contested the petition for maintenance and had taken a specific contention, that the respondent herein was not his legally wedded wife and that the marriage of the parties was never performed. The respondent herein thereafter tendered her evidence and the petitioner herein had also tendered his evidence and had also fielded a witness in support of his case. The said witness and the present petitioner were not cross-examined. However, at a belated 3 stage, after the evidence of the parties was closed, the respondent herein chose to file an amendment application, seeking to raise several contentions which were never raised, either by cross-examining the present petitioner or by seeking to file an amendment application at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that, only in order to create an entirely new case and to displace the evidence which is already on record, that such a tactic has been adopted by the respondent Therefore, the application was vehemently contested. The trial Court readily accepted the reasoning of the present petitioner that the application was not only belated but also would displace the evidence that was on record, and therefore, the application could not be allowed as it would cause prejudice. 3. That order was challenged in revision before the Court Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwar, and the same has been allowed and the present respondent has been permitted to amend her petition. 4 4. It is in this background, that the petitioner is before this Court. While reiterating the above sequence of events, he would again emphasize that though the present respondent had every opportunity to put forth her case in the fashion that she chose to do, and the present respondent not having chosen to cross-examine the petitioner or his witness at the appropriate stage, could not have at a belated stage sought to improve her case, to change the very basis of her claim in asserting the additional facts, which would have an effect of negating the evidence tendered by the petitioner. 5. While it is true, that according to the procedure and form the respondent ought to have filed any such amendment application at an appropriate time, in a case for maintenance by an estranged wife, the opportunity of establishing her marriage which is denied, is a valuable right which is sought to be asserted. If in fact, the present petitioner is able establish that the marriage of the parties never took place, it is open for the petitioner to do so in spite of any additional facts or evidence that the present respondent may choose to tender. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, to insist on procedure and form may result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, there is no warrant for interference with the order of the Courts below and the present respondent being permitted to amend her claim petition, cannot be said to cause serious prejudice to the present petitioner, though it may cause some inconvenience in having filed additional pleadings and tendered additional evidence. This is inevitable as her husband has denied her the right of maintenance and her other matrimonial rights which shall follow. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is rejected. Sd! JUDGE