MUMBAI: Bombay high court has allowed a man to amend his divorce petition to include subsequent instances of cruelty by his wife saying amendments cannot be denied.
Justice Roshan Dalvi on June 26, 2012 heard a petition filed by a husband challenging the Bandra Family Court’s February 29, 2012 order rejecting his application to amend his petition and add more instances to prove cruelty by his wife. The FC judge said events cited by the husband of cruelty to him and his wife were subsequent to filing of petition and are hence are mala fide.
The wife’s advocate argued that the husband has not made out any case for cruelty in his petition. He said adding subsequent events, after filing of petition, would not make out any case of cruelty and would remain events of such dates. Also that the wife has denied those incidents listed by the husband.
But Justice Dalvi in her order said cruelty, if any, as alleged in the petition would have to be proved as on the date of the petition. She added that other incidents , which are of later dates, would be seen by the judge hearing the petition on merits as of those later dates.It would be for the judge at the time of hearing to conclude whether or not that it amounted to cruelty and that would be only after taking into account the defence, if any, of the respondent on merits,” she added.
Observing that amendments cannot be refused on the ground that subsequent
events are denied, Justice Dalvi set aside the FC’s order. She allowed the husband to amend his petition in the family court and to give a copy of it to his wife within two weeks.
This Order is available at above link.
Forgive me for sounding like a righteously aggrieved male Defendant-Respondent-Victim who’s facing a barrage of hysterical, exaggerated, trumped-up 498A charges; but, consider this “outside the box” thinking for a moment:
… and so, within the “two weeks”, if there were to be more instances of “cruelty”, would the Petitioner be under obligation to amend the amended petition and resubmit within two more weeks (since a precedent has already been set)? This could go on indefinitely …! (Wicked Smile …!!).
Here’s some food for thought:
Improvising on this (horse) logic to strategic advantage, what if the Petitioner (my wifeypoo) were to amend the complaint citing just a few (amongst the many recent) incidents of alleged “cruelty”, wouldn’t this be tantamount to selective presentation of evidence designed to color the tribunal into rendering an opinion based upon incomplete and deliberately withheld information? Are some incidents of “cruelty” less “cruel” so as to warrant their exclusion from judicial scrutiny (and prejudice deliberations)? If so, is there a standard chart that defines a continuum of “cruelty” escalating from “Least Cruel” to “Most Cruel”; alternatively, from “Least Significant” to “Most Significant”? If there exists NOT such a Standard per the Evidence Code (or any other d**n Code), wouldn’t the evidence purportedly supporting such cruel allegations of “cruelty” be considered as lacking in totality, partial, deliberately incomplete rendering them suspect, misleading and facially flawed?
I wonder if this would work in court or whether I’d be strapped and escorted out by those funny men in white to the loonybin?