1 wp5767-11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5767/2011 (SUHASINI MANISH BIJWE VERSUS MANISH BABANRAO BIJWE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. Moin, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaidya, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 21 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on 08.08.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner-wife wanted to plead certain facts in the written statement in regard to the incident, which occurred in the month of January-2010 and about the proceedings, which were filed before this Court for quashing of the First Information Report dated 14.01.2010. The Family Court, however, rejected the application by the impugned order. There is no illegality or a jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. The Family Court observed that the husband, who had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition for grant of Divorce, had filed his evidence on affidavit on 16.11.2010 and the matter was adjourned from time to time at the behest of the wife. The Family Court further observed that it was not stated in the application for 2 wp5767-11 amendment as to what prevented the wife from pleading the facts stated in the amendment application pertaining to the complaint dated 02.01.2010 when the written statement was filed much later. Since the amendment application was filed when the case was fixed for cross-examination of the husband and since sufficient reasons were not stated in the application for belatedly filing the amendment application, the application was rightly rejected by the Family Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE