In the case of Govindarajan v. Vidya, Criminal a petition contesting a decision made by the Family Court permitting the petitioner’s spouse and minor kid to file amendments to their pleadings in an ongoing maintenance case
Submission from parties
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the Family Court violated the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by allowing the revision of pleadings to include new facts and allegations when there was no such provision.
According to the respondents, the Family Court’s decision to accept the requested modification in pleadings was warranted in the interest of justice because the case’s initial filing was missing key information that the aforementioned application for amendment in pleadings filled in.
Analysis of Court Order
The current appeal was dismissed by the single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court Justice V.G. Varun because technicalities have no place in maintenance proceedings and the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to lessen the suffering of poor women and children.
The Court stated that formalities have no role in maintenance matters because the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to lessen the suffering of poor women and children. It said, Rather than pondering trivial issues, the objective should be to assimilate the necessary details and arrive at the correct judgement as soon as possible. The spouse may be allowed to file an extra counter affidavit or objection in order to offset any harm that the amendment may have done to him. In light of the aforementioned opinion, the Court rejected the current petition and ordered the Family Court to receive any additional counter-affidavits that the petitioner may submit within two weeks.
CASE NAME – Govindarajan v. Vidya, Criminal Original Petition No. 314 of 2023