Dr.Ritesh Mondal v. Dr.Chhanda Mondal

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

CO/53/2024 Dr. Ritesh Mondal ...Petitioner Vs.

Dr. Chhanda Mondal ... Respondent Mrs. Yasmeen Begum ... for the Petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the Respondent December 04, 2024 (M.A.Mobin) Item No.1

1. The petitioner filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order No. 19 dated 06.11.2024 of learned Judge, Family Court, whereby he rejected his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in his written statement filed on 23.07.2024 in the pending Matrimonial suit No.138 of 2022 under Section 27(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner was intending to incorporate new facts for proper disposal of pending Matrimonial suit, which came to his knowledge later.

3. Learned Advocate for the respondent contended that learned Judge, Family Court, has rightly rejected the amendment application of petitioner because it was

made intentionally to cause delay.

The facts mentioned in paragraph (a) and paragraph (h) of the amendment application is amount to character assassination of Respondent. He further submitted that it was made only to frustrate the direction of Coordinate Bench given in C.O. 36 of 2024 for expeditious disposal of Matrimonial suit 138 of 2022 pending before Ld. Family Judge, Port Blair.

4. He further stated that trial of the said Mat Suit is at the advance stage. Evidence of respondent has been completed. At this stage amendment of written statement shall not help the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application as it was not necessary for proper disposal of this case on merit.

5. Indubitably, petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Wife sought divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Petitioner contested it by filing written statement. Adding further facts to cause aspersion on the character of wife, by way of amendment, would itself constitute mental cruelty.

Adding more allegation to vilify character would not improve his case and denying to allow add such facts by way of amendment would not prejudice his interest.

6. More so, Ld. Judge of Family Court has rejected the said amendment application filed under Order VI

Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merit and on assigning reasons.

7. In view of the above discussions I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order dated 16th November, 2024.

8. Accordingly, CO 53 of 2024 is dismissed but without any order as to the costs.

9. Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of this Matrimonial suit. 10.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)