THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No. 2983 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 18-08-2002, and they were blessed with a child. Alleging certain acts and omissions on the part of the respondent, the petitioner filed O.P.No.96 of 2008 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 13, read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce and custody of the minor child. During the pendency of the O.P., the petitioner filed I.A.No.803 of 2008 under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., with a prayer to permit her to amend the O.P., to incorporate the plea as to return of the gold and other ornaments, and for maintenance. It was pleaded that the ornaments mentioned in the petition were given by her parents at the time of her marriage, and they are in the custody of the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 14-12-2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri D. Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. The relief claimed in the O.P., presented by the petitioner, contained two prayers, viz., for dissolution of marriage, and custody of minor child. Two more prayers, i.e., return of the ornaments and grant of permanent alimony/maintenance; were sought to be introduced, by way of amendment. The record does not disclose that the trial of the O.P., has commenced. The learned Family Judge dismissed the I.A., by taking the view that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action. It is just untenable. When the O.P itself is for divorce, everything, that occurred between the date of marriage and the date of filing the O.P., becomes a facet of the cause of action. Another observation was made to the effect that the I.A was filed, nearly one year after the O.P was filed. The context, in which such an observation was made; is not indicated. It was not even mentioned that the trial of the O.P has commenced. The trial Court proceeded as though, every fact stated in an application for amendment would constitute a new cause of action. This Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner is permissible in law, and deserves to be allowed. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the I.A. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-08-2010. KO