Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court clarifies in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021)

Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a party amend their written statement to include a counterclaim for declaring a second marriage void in a divorce proceeding? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of amendments and counterclaims in matrimonial disputes. This case revolves around a wife’s attempt to include allegations of her husband’s second marriage and its illegality in her defense against his divorce petition. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) married on March 1, 1987, and had a son on May 3, 1990. The husband filed a divorce petition in 2007, alleging cruelty by the wife. The wife, in her written statement, claimed that the husband was cohabiting with another woman and intended to marry her. The husband denied these claims, stating the woman was a manager in his hospital. The wife later discovered that the husband had married the other woman on December 14, 2006, and had a child with her. She then sought to amend her written statement to include these facts and declare the second marriage void.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court allowed the wife to amend her written statement to include the fact of the second marriage but rejected her request to declare the second marriage void. The High Court of Gujarat overturned this decision, disallowing all amendments, stating that amendments cannot be made at such a late stage in the proceedings. The High Court, however, stated that the appellant can file a separate suit seeking for a declaration that the second marriage of the respondent-husband is void.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

  This provision allows the court to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided that such amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, a proviso states that no amendment is allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.

  “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.”

• Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC:

  This rule allows a defendant to set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff’s claim, either before or after the suit is filed but before the defendant has submitted their defense. The counterclaim has the same effect as a cross-suit.

  “A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not.”

• Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA):

  This section allows a respondent in divorce or other matrimonial proceedings to not only oppose the relief sought but also make a counterclaim for any relief under the HMA on the grounds of the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion.

  “In any proceeding for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent may not only oppose the relief sought on the ground of petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counter-claim for any relief under this Act on that ground; and if the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the court may give to the respondent any relief under this Act to which he or she would have been entitled if he or she had presented a petition seeking such relief on that ground.”

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)’s Arguments:

• The wife argued that she was unaware of the husband’s second marriage until his cross-examination in 2017, when the marriage certificate was produced.
• She contended that her application for amendment was filed promptly after gaining knowledge of the second marriage.
• She argued that the Family Court was correct in allowing the amendment to include the facts of the second marriage (paras 35 and 36).
• She submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting the amendment application based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.
• She argued that the counterclaim (para 37) was permissible under Section 23A of the HMA, as it sought to declare the second marriage void, which was consequential to the fact that her marriage with the respondent was still subsisting.
• She argued that the cause of action for the counterclaim arose only after the husband’s admission of the second marriage.
• She contended that the amendment was necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

Respondent (Husband)’s Arguments:

• The husband argued that the wife had knowledge of the second marriage since 2007, when she obtained a copy of the marriage certificate, and therefore the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
• He contended that the counterclaim seeking a declaration that the second marriage was void was not maintainable under Section 23A of the HMA.
• He argued that under Section 23A, a respondent can only seek relief against the petitioner on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, and can only seek reliefs available under Sections 9 to 13 of the HMA.
• He argued that the amendment application was filed with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings.
• He contended that the application for the counter claim was barred by Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, as the defendant had already filed the written statement.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the wife could amend her written statement to include the facts of the second marriage (paras 35 and 36).
2. Whether the wife could include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the second marriage was void (para 37) in the divorce proceeding.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): (Explained above)
• Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC: (Explained above)
• Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA): (Explained above)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 167* – The court relied on this case to support its view that delay is not a ground for refusing amendment to a written statement.
• Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117* – The court cited this case to support its position that the power to allow amendments is wide and must be liberally construed.
• Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341* – The court relied on this case to support its view that the power to allow amendments is wide and must be liberally construed.
• Gurbakhsh Singh v. Buta Singh, (2018) 6 SCC 567* – The court cited this case to support its position that the power to allow amendments is wide and must be liberally construed.
• Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri, (2020) 2 SCC 394* – The court relied on this case to support its view that a counter claim is to be decided as an independent suit and can be entertained if within limitation.
• Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N., (2006) 12 SCC 1* – The court cited this case to support the respondent’s argument that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage.
• M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (dead) by Lrs., (2019) 4 SCC 332* – The court cited this case to support the respondent’s argument that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage.
• Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409* – The court cited this case to support the respondent’s argument that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage.
• Damodar v. Urmila, AIR 1980 Raj. 57* – The court agreed with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court that a matrimonial court cannot declare a marriage void.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• Timeliness of Knowledge: The Court emphasized that the wife’s knowledge of the second marriage came to light only during the husband’s cross-examination, which justified the amendment of the written statement.
• Scope of Section 23A: The Court clarified that Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act allows counterclaims only for reliefs available under the Act, and a declaration of a third party’s marriage as void was not within the scope of these sections.
• Prevention of Multiplicity of Proceedings: The Court was keen on allowing amendments that would help in determining the real questions in controversy, thus preventing multiplicity of proceedings.
• Adherence to Procedural Law: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the CPC, particularly Order VI Rule 17 and Order VIII Rule 6A, while also interpreting them in a manner that promotes justice.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual considerations (40%). The interpretation of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act and the procedural aspects of the CPC played a crucial role in the court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Can the wife amend her written statement to include the facts of the second marriage?

Issue 2: Can the wife include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the second marriage was void?

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals. The Court held that the wife was permitted to amend her written statement to include the facts of the second marriage (paras 35 and 36) because she only came to know about the marriage during the cross-examination of the husband. However, the Court rejected the wife’s plea to include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the second marriage was void (para 37), stating that Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not allow such a counterclaim. The Court stated that the wife could initiate separate proceedings for this relief. The Court restored the Family Court’s order permitting the amendment of the written statement as per paras 35 and 36, while disallowing the amendment as per para 37.

“Therefore, in view of the above, the restrictions as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC shall not be applicable.”

“On a fair reading of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent in any proceedings for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights can pray for the relief by way of counter claim only those reliefs which can be prayed and/or granted under the Hindu Marriage Act…”

“In such a situation, the only remedy available to the appellant would be to file a substantive suit and/or initiate independent proceedings claiming such reliefs. But such reliefs cannot be claimed by way of counter claim under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act…”

Key Takeaways

• Amendments to written statements can be allowed even after the commencement of trial if the party gains knowledge of new facts during the trial and could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.
• Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act allows a respondent to make a counterclaim only for reliefs available under the Act, such as divorce, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights.
• A counterclaim seeking a declaration that a third party’s marriage is void is not maintainable under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• Parties seeking declarations regarding the validity of a third party’s marriage must file a separate suit or initiate independent proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant is permitted to amend the written statement as per paras 35 and 36. The amendment sought by the appellant qua para 37 was dismissed. The Court also stated that it will be open for the appellant to initiate independent proceedings by way of filing a substantive suit and/or any other remedy which may be available to the appellant under law with respect to prayer sought qua para 37.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while amendments to written statements are liberally allowed to address real questions in controversy, counterclaims in matrimonial disputes are limited by Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court clarified that a counterclaim seeking a declaration that a third party’s marriage is void is not maintainable under this provision. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act and the limitations on counterclaims in matrimonial disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel provides clarity on the scope of amendments to pleadings and counterclaims in matrimonial disputes. While amendments are allowed to ensure all relevant facts are considered, counterclaims under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act are limited to reliefs available under the Act. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural law while also ensuring that justice is served by allowing parties to present their full case.