Delhi HC Upholds Permission For Divorced Husband To Amend Support And Custody Case After Trial Began, Citing Family Courts Act Flexibility

The parties’ marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2012, with a settlement addressing, among other matters, the children’s expenses, custody and visitation.

In 2013, the respondent sought modification of the settlement under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

After issues were framed and the respondent’s evidence and cross-examination had commenced, he applied in December 2019 to amend his pleadings and place additional documents on record.

The proposed amendments concerned financial circumstances, the parties’ conduct and subsequent developments relating to the children.

The Family Court allowed the application, finding the amendments necessary for deciding the case and not changing its nature.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, principally relying on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the absence of due diligence.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC ordinarily requires a party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier; the amendment must also be assessed for its relevance, effect on the nature of the case and prejudice to the other party.

Under Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, the CPC applies to Family Court proceedings subject to the Act; Section 10(3) permits the Family Court to devise its procedure to facilitate settlement or ascertain the truth, while Section 20 gives the Act overriding effect in case of inconsistency. That flexibility is not unlimited and must respect relevance, fairness and natural justice.

Sections 25(2) and 26 HMA permit relief concerning maintenance and children to be varied in light of changed circumstances.

Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate, and permits interference only for jurisdictional error, perversity, manifest illegality or grave failure of justice. Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel were applied on that limitation.

The Court accepted that the proposed amendments included matters known to the respondent before the application was filed, and that he had not separately explained why each could not have been raised earlier.

It nevertheless considered the amendments in the context of the continuing maintenance and child-related relief sought under Sections 25 and 26 HMA, and the Family Court’s procedural authority under Section 10(3).

The material was found relevant to the dispute, including the parties’ financial circumstances and developments concerning the children; its earlier point of origin could be considered in assessing evidentiary weight and prejudice.

The petitioner remained entitled to contest the material, and no denial of a fair opportunity or manifest prejudice was shown.

The Court therefore held that the due-diligence objection did not justify Article 227 interference in the circumstances.

It dismissed the petition, upheld the order dated 19 October 2020, and disposed of any pending applications.