Amendment to Objection in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings Cannot be Allowed if it Introduces Entirely New Plea

The Petitioner (husband) challenged an order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Family Court, Bhadrak, which rejected his application to amend his written objection in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Opposite Parties (wife and children) filed for maintenance in 2024 alleging ill-treatment and neglect

After the wife was cross-examined and the case reached the stage of the Petitioner’s evidence, the Petitioner sought to amend his objection to include allegations of adultery based on "objectionable photographs" allegedly found in a box belonging to the wife

The trial court rejected the amendment on the grounds of delay and the benevolent nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether an amendment to a written objection/statement is maintainable in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the trial court's rejection of the amendment application on the grounds of delay and potential prejudice to the wife was legally sound

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy

While the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain a specific provision for amendments like Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the court relied on Sabita Sahoo v. Khirod Kumar Sahoo (1990) to hold that Magistrates possess ancillary procedural powers to allow amendments to prevent multiplicity of proceedings

while amendments can be permitted in criminal/quasi-criminal proceedings, they must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and should not be allowed if they cause prejudice to the other side or are not bona fide

The Court reasoned that although the power to amend exists, it is not mechanical and must be based on necessity and bona fides.

The Petitioner sought to introduce a completely new plea of adultery only after the wife had already been cross-examined extensively.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had taken multiple adjournments before filing the amendment, suggesting a dilatory tactic.

It found that allowing the amendment at this late stage would displace the wife from her original stand and cause significant prejudice by delaying a summary proceeding intended for swift relief.

The Court noted that if the Petitioner proves adultery in the concurrent civil divorce proceedings, that finding would automatically impact the Section 125 maintenance order later.

The CRLMP was dismissed, and the High Court declined to interfere with the lower court's refusal to allow the amendment.