Introduction:

In the case of Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh (First Appeal No. 49 of 2025), the Allahabad High Court addressed a significant issue concerning the misuse of procedural provisions to delay matrimonial litigation. The bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, examined the husband’s attempt to amend his pleadings a decade after the initiation of divorce proceedings, highlighting the importance of due diligence and the prevention of harassment through legal processes.

Arguments:

Appellant-Wife’s Perspective: The appellant-wife contended that the husband’s amendment application, filed ten years after the commencement of divorce proceedings, was a strategic move to prolong the litigation and harass her. She argued that the husband had ample opportunity to raise the issue of restitution of conjugal rights earlier but chose to remain silent, thereby abusing the legal process. The appellant emphasised that the delay had caused her undue hardship, preventing her from moving forward with her life.

Respondent-Husband’s Perspective: The respondent-husband sought to amend his pleadings to include a claim for restitution of conjugal rights, asserting that the amendment was necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter. However, he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the decade-long delay in raising this claim, nor did he demonstrate that he had exercised due diligence in pursuing this course of action earlier.

Court’s Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court critically analysed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which governs the amendment of pleadings. The court noted that while amendments can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, post-trial commencement amendments require the applicant to demonstrate that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. In this case, the court observed that the husband had been aware of the facts since the inception of the divorce proceedings and had not provided any justification for the delayed amendment. The bench concluded that the amendment application was a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and harass the wife, thereby undermining the spirit of Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The court expressed concern over the Family Court’s decision to allow the amendment application despite the High Court’s earlier directive to expedite the divorce proceedings within four months. The bench emphasised that the Family Court had failed to apply its judicial mind appropriately, leading to unnecessary prolongation of the case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the wife’s appeal, set aside the Family Court’s order permitting the amendment, and directed the Family Court to conclude the divorce proceedings within two months without granting unwarranted adjournments.