1 WP.8344/09-IA.58/08-MJP.A-1551/2005 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8344 OF 2009 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2008 IN M.J.PETITION NO. A-1551 OF 2005 Preeti Paresh Shah ...Petitioner Vs. Paresh Vasanji Shah ...Respondent Mr. Swanand Ganu i/b. Kiran Jain & Co., for Petitioner Mrs. Uma G. Wagle for Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. The order which is challenged in this Writ Petition is an order refusing amendment to the Petition for divorce filed by the wife in which certain subsequent events are sought to be brought on record. 3. The learned Judge has considered, perhaps rightly, that these subsequent events are in the nature of evidence. However, the learned Judge has also considered that the application is belated and that these amendments are not necessary for deciding the matter in issue. Upon observing that the 2 WP.8344/09-IA.58/08-MJP.A-1551/2005 application has no substance, it has been rejected. 4. The Petitioner has averred about two complaints one filed in April 2007 and the other filed in July 2007 in the original Petition for divorce. In the amendments the Petitioner seeks to incorporate the interim proceedings that have taken place in those criminal complaints, consequent upon the prosecution that ensued and the orders that have been passed in those applications. The Petitioner has also sought to incorporate in the amendments the act of the Respondent with regard to two licenced revolvers and the criminal complaint lodged in respect thereof. Further the amendments relate to certain expenses with regard to the child of the parties incurred under the circumstances stated in the amendment application. 5. Essentially the entire truth between the parties on merits is required to be considered at the final hearing. That however does not mean that the entire evidence is to be stated in the pleadings. The pleadings, of course, require to be precise, concise and brief. The learned Judge has, therefore, considered that the averment with regard to two complaints alone suffice as pleadings. This is on the footing that the learned Judge would appreciate that the facts which are otherwise sought to be brought on record by way of amendments would be allowed as evidence in support of the pleadings already made with regard to the two complaints. That observation is absent in the order. That observation would have otherwise sufficed. There are two other matters which are also sought to be added by way of amendments. They are not inconsistent with the case in the 3 WP.8344/09-IA.58/08-MJP.A-1551/2005 Petition. They are not barred by the law of limitation. The Respondent would not be prejudiced by any such amendments. 6. The only purpose of allowing or disallowing the amendment is that ultimately the entire truth is considered by the Court. 7. Interest of justice requires that whatever be the facts that are sought to be brought on record are considered at the ultimate stage to determine the material issues between the parties. 8. Under these circumstances and in view of these facts it would be more prudent to allow than disallow the amendment. Consequently, the order dated 23rd June 2009 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai in Interim Application No.58/2008 in M.J. Petition No. A-1551/2005 is set aside. The amendments are allowed. 9. The Petitioner shall carry out amendments within 2 weeks from today. 10.The Petitioner shall also carry out amendments in the copy of the Petition served upon the Respondent within 2 weeks from today. 11.Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)