Amendments exposing conduct affecting a minor’s welfare are permissible in guardianship proceedings.

The minor petitioner, represented by his maternal grandfather, and the grandfather sought guardianship and custody in G. & W.C. No. 24/2024.

They applied under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend their petition to plead that the respondent paternal grandmother had acted against the minor’s interests in revenue and partition proceedings concerning property in which the minor had an interest.

The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the petition.

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature and scope of the guardianship and custody proceedings

2. Whether the proposed amendment, concerning the respondent’s conduct in collateral proceedings involving the minor’s property interests, was relevant to determining guardianship and custody

The application for amendment was made under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The High Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court stated that, in proceedings concerning guardianship and custody, the minor’s interest and welfare are pivotal; conduct by a party that may be detrimental to the minor’s person or property may therefore be relevant to the guardianship and custody determination.

No precedent was cited.

The proposed amendment did not seek a determination of the minor’s property rights; it sought to place on record the respondent’s conduct in proceedings affecting the minor’s property interests, including an alleged concession made in a partition suit.

That conduct could bear on whether the respondent was acting in the minor’s interests and was therefore relevant to the guardianship and custody proceedings.

The trial court’s brief finding that the amendment changed the nature of the petition failed to address this purpose or the welfare consideration central to the proceedings.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 13 July 2026 in G. & W.C. No. 24/2024, and allowed the petitioners’ amendment application.